Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Waymarks 48 February 2007



Waymarks 48

Report of Open Air Preaching


December 6th LUTON T C. I don’t usually preach seasonal messages. In the open air there is no point preaching structured sermons anyway. But today I preached on Luke 2: 14. There is peace on earth. There is peace with God through faith in Christ Jesus, right now , here on this earth. It is to every repentant soul who trusts in Christ. The coming into this world of the Son of God to be the Saviour of the world is the evidence of God’s goodwill to this human race.
The words “Peace to all men and women on earth who please him” (The  Message) impugn the very nature of God. Passers by were told there is none on this planet, unconverted, who can please God. There is none good no not one. The gospel is for all mankind. There is no peace saith my God to the wicked. Bethlehem tells you that you are a sinner on the way to hell. This is why Christ Jesus came into the world; to save sinners.
But few were interested. None stopped to hear more of the gospel. In fact none even turned to look in my direction.
If they had read the lying verse (Lk.2: 14, The Messenger) posted outside one  Gospel Hall in Luton they would conclude that they had never pleased God so no point in stopping to listen now.

December 13th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. Preached the same message as on 6th December with the same effect.

January 10th  LUTON T.C. One man stood listening. I could just see him out of the corner of my eye. When I finished preaching he approached me. He had the appearance of a dosser and spoke like one. All dossers are philosophers and expert theologians so he picked me up on a few points I had made. I had mentioned the myths of Valhalla and Utopia, Reincarnation, Purgatory, and he knew all about these. He couldn’t explain how they couldn’t all be right and seemed to grasp that the resurrection of Christ showed up the fallacy of every world religion. Because there are always Muslims listening I make sure the resurrection is emphasised. It is an essential of the gospel of Christ.

January 17th LUTON T.C. Today  nobody stood listening but many heard. I ask myself how do so many street preachers manage to get themselves arrested or at least assaulted by passers by. Why I am I almost totally ignored? Is there something wrong with my message, or my style, or myself? Then I read some comments by people  (unsaved presumably) who had come up against a street preacher. They had been harangued, shouted at, mocked, etc. They had been offended by a variety of slogans on banners held high.
Well, I don’t use slogans. “Sodomites will go to hell”  may be true but I believe the displayed Word of God carries more power in winning souls. This after all must be the preacher’s earnest desire; to win souls for Christ.  Abusive language has no part in the soul winner’s ministry even when confronted by an angry Muslim or J.W.
We do have to be faithful in reminding people of the consequences of their sin and I do not believe it is wrong on occasion to name the sin. But we must preach Christ crucified ─the sinner’s Saviour.
A loud hailer pushes the audience farther back and angers them. I don’t use one because I want to be approachable.

February 9th Heavy snowfalls have kept me in over the past two days. I am reminded of a snowy day 25 years ago when I did go out and discovered a large open air rally taking place in a recreational ground in central Luton. About two thousand people were gathered in the falling snow to listen to their union leaders.
Vauxhall Motors were about to lay off a large number of workers and they were being told that there was no hope for them. All remained in the park. None were seen sidling off. They remained standing  in the snow for about an hour.
Imagine inviting folk to come and stand in a snowstorm for an hour to learn they had no hope for the future. This is what they did!
Imagine inviting people to a gospel meeting in the park in warm weather and chairs to sit on. Then tell them there is a glorious future and eternal prosperity for the soul trusting in Christ. So they don’t come!! The human race is soul-dead and brain damaged. (Yes, sin DOES damage the brain.) The human race is now down to 10% efficiency as far as brain power is concerned. Adam started at 100% efficiency. If you are an evolutionist you will want to reverse these figures.

For years we have preached in the parks of Beds/Bucks/Herts, in bad weather and good. Now and again a soul has been saved. Most times we were under canvas but once when our tent was destroyed during a riot in the town we preached in the open for the following few weeks. We preached to people in the park, teen-agers mostly, who would never have come into the tent.







AV Verses Vindicated

Isaiah 38: 8
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

Most modern versions and parodies of Scripture read similar to the GNB ─ “On the stairway built by King Ahaz, the LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved back ten steps.”
The Hebrew word translated ‘degrees’ is ma’alah  (Str.4609). I could find no manuscript variants. Modern versions accept this word but translate it ‘steps’. The word ‘dial’ is also ma’alah which word is  found translated ‘steps’ in Ex.20: 26,  Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar.
The modern translators therefore jump to the conclusion that Ahaz’s sun dial was a succession of steps on which the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into flat ground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would be measured more effectively.
But the modern men are making gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would need to be swung through 180o at midday, otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of the day.
Persisting in this nonsense some tell us that David’s songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) were composed on these steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.
The AV translators were well aware that ma’alah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1 Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.  
The Egyptians had invented a sun dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial was based on theirs. It was ‘T’ shaped with a raised cross bar causing a shadow to fall on the stem. This instrument lay flat on the ground and was rotated through 180o  at midday. (See sundial: Enc. Brit.)
Textual critics are proven deceivers. Beware.

Pic missing
Even if this really is  a pic. of Ahaz’s sun dial, we maintain the use of the word ‘steps’ remains misleading.

Matthew 28: 19
Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This should read “ ‘into the name’, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God” says P. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers; 1873.
Well of course, the preposition is eis which is commonly translated “into”. but he doesn’t let his readers know that 20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including “in”. Should we read “He came and dwelt into (eis) a city called Nazareth”?
Schaff’s change is governed by his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God. Many still follow this pernicious error.

Acts2: 47
And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Modern versions omit “the church” (ekklesia).  The Lord used the word first in Matt.16: 18, I will build my church;
showing that prior to this the church did not exist. It was not to be Israel in new guise. The church was not to be introduced solely because of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. It was in the mind of God from eternity.  
In Acts 5: 11 we see an established church. When we come to Acts 9 we find a multiplicity of churches (v.31).
The word  Ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. So why omit it in Acts 2? The reason is not hard to find; it disturbs Covenant Theology which refuses to recognise the differences between the Church and Israel..

1 Corinthians 10: 1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant....

Preachers like their audience to believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few cross references in Darby or Vine etc.
We have an example in 1 Cor. 10: 1. The preacher reads the verse then says “If you have a good translation it will read ‘for’, and not ‘moreover’.”  Therefore a good translation will be Darby’s or the RV or the ASV not forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will be the AV of course.
The Greek word translated ‘moreover’ in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the Greek Received Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then, when, for, etc. (Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be translated ‘for’. See Acts 17: 21. you may find another example if you search hard enough.).

Our preacher never learned Greek. I haven’t either  (more is the pity) What the preacher really wants you to know is if the Brethren didn’t produce it, it isn’t any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram, Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has written elsewhere, most preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil.
Reading ‘for’ does not improve the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know that
Paul’s comment in v.1 builds on what has gone immediately before.

By the Way....


“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke. Don’t we have a Scripture that will speak even better than this wise saying? How about Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. 1 Cor. 16: 13
There are still some good men about. Some of them are men of action. In the spiritual warfare they will draw the direct interest of the enemy of souls. He will try and silence them; to bring them down; to destroy them. He will use all the weapons at his disposal such as Pseudo-brethren, who will make a pretence of support but run in the face of fire. Wimpering wives who can’t bear that their dearie will be ill spoken of. Full frontal attack  from the local Diotrophese.
I remember a man standing in the congregation who told us the Lord was capable of any sin. I remained silent for I was but a young man. That was my excuse for cowardice in the face of the enemy. I saw a young man cast out of the gathering for opposing this blasphemer several years later, and none stood by the young man. I saw a fellowship of 90+ dwindle to a handful in the months following this shameful night.
I saw a Man outcast, despised and rejected and hanging upon a tree. A friend had betrayed Him and His other friends had fled.
Men urge us now to forsake the faith; to stand no more for the things we love. The cause is lost, they say, and the battle done. Relax a while and have some fun. Besides, we live in a different day; the world is not too bad at all. The strife laden Bible doctrines of the past need not bother us, for evil now is good and good men gone.
If good men do nothing in the fight against evil they become nothing.

To quit like men is not to run away. Some leave their congregations because of difficulties. One leaves only when staying means having fellowship with what God hates. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph.5: 11. Quitting like men is to act manly. Speaking against error is to act manly. Having fellowship with  fornicators and adulterers (divorced and remarried persons are adulterers *) and such like is forbidden in Scripture. 1 Cor. 6: 9.
* see  my blog at www.waymarks.blogspot.com




J.B. Phillips (1906-1982)

 a well-known Bible paraphraser, was a straight-up heretic. His writings plainly reveal what he believed:
  • The new birth is simply a "change of outlook" (When God Was Man, p. 28).
  • Devils aren't spirit creatures, they are the "storm centre of the personality". (When God Was Man, p. 19).
  • The Bible is not particularly inspired by God. "I should like to make it quite clear that I could not possibly hold the extreme `fundamentalist' position of so-called `verbal inspiration'" (Ring of Truth, p. 28). "...I felt bound to abandon the `God- dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).
  • Satan does not have permanent existence. "If our critics mean that we believe in the permanent existence of Satan, the Devil or the powers of evil, they are wrong, for we do not." (Ring of Truth, p. 51).
  • No such thing as miracles. "A `miracle' is, by definition, something to be wondered at, and in the past, when laws then unknown were being used, it was commonly assumed that divine intervention was the cause of the wonder. ... but I think that it is unlikely." (Ring of Truth, p. 93).
  • Acension of Christ is a parable. In other words, it didn't really occur. (Ring of Truth, p. 107).
I was thrown off the Brethren internet Scripture Forum by WALTER BOYD for pointing out to subscribers that this Anglican cleric was a notorious apostate.

More about Progressive Dispensationalism

(An open letter to Mr Norman Mellish)

Dear Norman,
you recently spent three evenings giving ministry on this subject to our assembly and one evening at a neighbouring assembly. You mentioned several times a book that had influenced you on the subject. It was The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain,. It was originally published in 1968 by Moody Press, and 1974 by BMH Books. My copy is the tenth printing, March 2005. It has 556 pages. I told you I would obtain a copy and let you know what I thought about it.  It was not difficult reading being largely free of theological jargon etc but 556 pages took some reading. Did you read it all? I have. 
You based your ministry on this book though I suspect that you have been seriously influenced by other persons. Your ministry opposed the dispensational teaching that I have come to hold to over  half a century. You suggested that any not too happy with your ministry had probably been influenced in the past by “exclusive” writers. My inference from this remark is you believe the whole Brethren Movement to be the product of Exclusive Brethrenism. Assemblies generally have held to Traditional Dispensationalism. Do you blame J N Darby for this? As for me it has been my practice from the day I was converted to check references. I was influenced in early days  by Dwight Pentecost, J Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie but read very little of Scofield and Darby ( I have never coped with Darby!) I checked the statements they made against Scripture and that meant I didn’t necessarily accept everything they wrote.

Alarm bells rang before I opened the cover of The Greatness of the Kingdom.  The subtitle reads an Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God.  Why does it have to be an inductive study? Why not an expository study? Why not take the verses of Scripture dealing with the subject and examine them against each other by comparison and contrast. Scripture is its own interpreter! Mcclain’s answer to this is found on page 17.

The Kingdom of God in Scripture is a concept not easily handled by the conventional method of Systematic Theology..... Therefore it is not enough to study a collation of texts on the subject; but the material must be examined in relation to the movement of history and the progress of divine revelation.

This is the key to the book. The Bible is not sufficient in itself to give an understanding of the subject. The events of history determine the meaning of the Scripture. We had always thought that (prophetic) Scripture determined the events of history.
A definition of Inductive Study is found in Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie, published in 1965 by Moody Press. He quotes D P Fuller─

The inductive method of Bible study, which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks to gain all the facts before drawing some conclusion from them. ─p.95.

If all the facts are Bible facts, all well and good. But the covenant theologians, with the progressive dispensationalists superimpose their own scheme on the Bible. They may argue the same for the traditional dispensationalist. The difference is TD takes a literal face value approach to interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this. This is the only effective way to understand the Bible.

When we read Romans 9: 3,4 we accept the words at their face value. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the service of God , and the promises;
The covenants pertain to Israelites, Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh. They pertain to the Jewish nation no matter what their present spiritual state. Whatever covenant is spoken of in the Old Testament, it pertains to, relates to, belongs to the earthly nation of Israel. It belongs to Israel in its entirety.
With the covenants come the promises. Paul wrote that the OT promises are the property of Israel. But some promises of course bring blessing to the Gentiles. (The Lord said salvation is of the Jews, Jn. 4: 22).

So we come to Jeremiah 31: 31-35, a prophecy that some tell us is fulfilled at least partially in the Church.

 31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
35. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

This covenant is explicit. It is future, ─ I will make...  It will be with a specific nation, Israel/Judah. It will be infrangible, its law written within them and in their hearts. It will be a regenerate nation with iniquity forgiven and sin no more remembered. All will know the Lord. This new covenant is yet in the future. It hasn’t been made yet seeing Israel is still in unbelief.

This new covenant is not to be confused with the BETTER COVENANT, Heb. 8 6, which is based on better promises and is the new covenant on which the church rests. The mention of the first covenant not being faultless is done so in Hebrews to show that it is reasonable for a second to be introduced. The Christian readers of the book of Hebrews need not be surprised therefore if God introduces something new and better for them.
The church does not come into the good of Israel’s new covenant though that too must be ratified  through the blood of Christ. Believers discover that God’s laws are not put in their minds inevitably and written in their hearts indelibly. They have to be learned. Teaching remains a necessity in this dispensation.  A great blessing of Israel’s New Covenant is that teachers are not required. This blessing plainly has not become the property of the Church.

The church’s new covenant brings every believer into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10: 19) as a priest of God

p.s. I have no real problem with the inductive method of study as first set out by John Wycliffe in the 14th Century. He wrote,

“It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture if ye mark,
Not only what is spoken or written,
But of whom,
and to whom,
with what words,
at what time,
where,
to what intent,
with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before,,
and what followeth”.



The Holy Scriptures. Where are they?


Do we possess the Holy Scriptures today or do we not? Many think not or if we do they are incomplete and defective in many places. Many think furthermore that the original Scriptures can never be fully recovered.
Bible believers will argue that the Holy Scriptures have never been lost and are available today in many languages.

The New Testament uses the term “Holy Scriptures” twice and it is found in almost all modern versions except The Message.
Rom. 1: 1,2. ....the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy hagios Scriptures.)
2 Tim. 3: 15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy heiros Scriptures.  Paul never wrote to Timothy, “you have known the word of God”. He knew what had been written down and preserved as under the inspiration of God.

Peter knew that Paul was writing Scripture. 2 Peter 3: 16.
The term Scripture is used once in the O.T., and refers to writings that are God given – The Scripture (kathab) of truth Dan. 10: 21.
 Kathab is translated several times ‘writing’ and refers to human writings.

Paul assures us that the Holy Scriptures existed in the past, giving promise of the gospel of God, and were extant in Timothy’s day telling him they ARE able to make thee wise unto salvation. We are compelled to acknowledge that Timothy’s was a copy many times removed from the original.
The term “Scriptures” occurs 21 times, and 31 times “Scripture” in the AV New Testament. These translate the Greek word graphe.  The holy Scriptures are the words of God given by inspiration and written down. The term is synonymous therefore with  “The Holy Bible” . If it is holy there can be nothing in it that is erroneous. It is sacred and pure from every form of defilement or it cannot be called Holy Bible. Defilements are usually in the eye of the beholder
It would be very strange if God gave the written Word only for it to be lost in a generation or so. We note from the writing of Tregelles that he with all critics believe that the written words of God did become lost.
But God has promised to preserve His written word. The Scripture cannot be broken. John 10: 35. It cannot be destroyed or dissolved. It is  permanently indelible.
Seeing that bible versions differ materially in very many places, we ask which is Scripture?
Is it “God was manifest in the flesh”  (AV) or is it “He who was manifested in the flesh” (RV,ASV), “He  appeared in his human nature” (GW). These three readings differ significantly from each other. If all three are regarded as Scripture, then God is charged with confusion and lies.
Critics will go to great lengths to justify their various readings and we are not concerned with them here.
If we believe God had preserved His word in holy Scripture  ─and if we don’t believe we are probably unregenerate  ─we ask where shall we find it? The answer to my mind is plain; we find the Scriptures in the hands of believers through the ages from the beginning. These Scriptures, commonly held by believers, are of one family, named as Byzantine, Majority, Received, and in our day as far as English is concerned, The Authorized or King James Bible.
The practice from the beginning has been to reject the false, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.
Those who have promoted their variants have proved themselves so often to be apostate as far as their faith is concerned. These have been men such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and in more recent times, Westcott and Hort, Metzger, Aland, and many others.
We have to ask ourselves, whom do we follow, faithful men such as Tyndale, or those known to be apostate?
We  have a Bible. It is holy. It is the preserved word of God, it is holy Scripture. It is the Authorized Version.
Some may disagree with me. They must go their own way. I shall not walk with them.

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles

Tregelles was the brother-in-law of B W Newton. He was a great scholar though self taught. He produced a Greek New Testament in the tradition of Greisbach and Lachmann which was much applauded among the scholars and textual critics. Below is an excerpt from Samuel Tregelles; Background to Modern Translations of the Bible by Hywel Jones and presented at the annual lecture of the Evangelical Library, London, 1975.



Tregelles tells us himself of the way in which he was drawn to this subject [textual criticism]. In his own private study of the New Testament he saw the importance of ascertaining the best text, i.e., nearest to the original, wherever there was some variation in the manuscripts. Others had done work on this before him, but in order to evaluate it he needed to be able to evaluate the authorities they used. He saw that one of these editors named Scholz consistently rejected the testimony of earlier manuscripts, and also that `a text might be formed, which if not genuine, was at least ancient'. Another editor, Griesbach, was not consistent in following the ancient copies. So Tregelles writes:
`There arose before my mind an earnest desire that some scholar, possessed of the needful qualifications, mental, moral and spiritual, and who had leisure for such a work, would undertake an edition resting on ancient authorities only, and in which the citations from MSS might be given as correctly as possible.'
He translated his desire into actuality. From a specimen study on Colossians 2:2, he proceeded in 1841-2 to edit the text of the Apocalypse which appeared in 1844. He was particularly pleased that expositors who differed in their prophetic teaching felt able to use the text, and he deduced from this that it was free from bias. On the completion of this he announced his intention of editing the Greek Testament. This work appeared in six parts in the twenty-eight years that followed.
We must now try to trace Tregelles' course, his plan and its accomplishment, in connection with this his magnum opus. Our main source of material is his all-important work entitled `An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann and Tischendorf, with that in common use'. We shall in future call this his Account. This was published in 1854, and the Library possesses B. W. Newton's copy. It was dedicated to the University of Saint Andrews `in grateful recognition of encouragement bestowed on Biblical Studies', and appeared in 1854. The reference here of course is to the honorary degree conferred upon him but note his self-effacement.
In this book he calls his method Comparative Criticism, and describes it as follows:
`I mean such an investigation as shows what the character of a document is-not simply from its age, whether known or supposed but from its actual readings being shown to be in accordance or not with certain other documents.'
Using this method he aimed to produce a text in which every word rested on ancient authority. Three resolutions were made by him:-

‘lst To form a text on the authority of ancient copies, without allowing the "received text" any prescriptive right.

2nd To give to the ancient versions a determining voice, as to the insertion or non-insertion of CLAUSES etc.; letting the order or words, etc., rest wholly upon MSS.

'rd-To give the AUTHORITIES for the text, and for the various readings, clearly and accurately so that the reader might at once see what rests upon ancient evidence.'

Tregelles’ first resolution sweeps away what Christians had relied upon and trusted from the 2nd Cent. to the 19th Cent. viz., the Received Text. The vast majority of mss are in line with the Received Text. Tregelles would reject these thousands of mss for a few “ancient copies”.
The second resolution finds emphasis given to ancient versions. These I could not find listed but they had only a “determining voice” where they agreed with his preselected mss.
The third resolution gives the game away. The mss are named and we find them to be those rejected by the early churches; Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and one or two others.
Dr. Burgon wrote of Tregelles,

[He] effectually persuaded himself that ‘eighty-nine ninetieths’ of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity. ─ Revision Revised; p.22.A G Hobbs Publications; Centennial Ed. 1983.

His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who─in order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region ─begins by putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. ─ibid. p.243.

Tregelles wrote concerning 1 John 5: 7, 1 Timothy 3: 16, Acts 20: 28,
Many have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three passages: they are accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities; and they have desired to cling to them; although they might have known that in argument they are worthless, because opposers are full well aware how groundless or uncertain are those readings of these passages which some have called orthodox. The consequence unhappily has been, that the most essential and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine have been supposed by some to rest on uncertain grounds. Now, the same criticism which shows that particular readings are not genuine, proves uncontestably that others are unquestionable; and thus no point of orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages enough (such as Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early controversies.
Criticism, however, need not be at all feared; if it takes away on the one hand readings which were thought to have some dogmatic value, it will give on the other quite as much. Instances of this will be seen in two passages, John 1:18, and 1 Pet. 3:15.
We point out that Tregelles’s criticisms were based on his pre-conceived notion that oldest is best, ignoring all the evidence that existed then concerning these three verses.
This is what textual critics have been doing ever since. Tregelles used practically the same method as Lachmann although he protested that he didn’t perceive what Lachmann was doing as his works were all in German.

In the year 2007 we find Bible Teachers who have not examined the works of Tregelles or any other Textual Critic for that matter, who repeatedly undermine the confidence of young believers─and some older─in the Authorized Bible with its underlying Received text. These men “prefer” modern versions crafted out of Greek Texts (they cannot name which Greek Text) that rely on two or three seriously depraved manuscripts.
They describe their ministry as ‘Sweet Thoughts of Jesus’ but they ought rather to announce their purpose; it is to destroy faith.

Tregelles was a spiritual gypsy. He started out with the Quakers, converted to Brethrenism, left after a few years and then nobody is quite sure what happened to him after that. He became either Presbyterian or Anglican.
He was on the Revised Version committee and apparently had no problem fellowshipping with the Unitarian Smith and with the Mariolaters, Westcott and Hort.

Comments on “tittle”.

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail Luke 16: 17

Dr T Srouse points out in the EBT Journal, Spring 2006:-
1.The Oxford English Dictionary traces the history of the occurrence of the word tittle to Wycliff’s translation of the Bible in 1382.  He                  rendered the Latin             apex       , for “point or tip,” in Matthew 5:18 and Luke  16:17  as titel                  
2.When the Lord employed the Greek work  keraia    He was giving the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew      chireq. These are the dots appearing under the consonants in the Hebrew text.  

3.The fallacious view that man invented the Hebrew vowel points has   nothing to commend it.  Is there any reason that Bible believers                  must  countenance  the  speculative  view  that  the  Lord  God,  the Creator of language, disdains vowels, at least to the extent that He    would not preserve them in written form (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew2:35)?  After all, has not the Lord Jesus Christ referred to Himself    as the   Alpha     and         Omega   (Revelation 1:8; 21:6), the first and last         vowels of the Greek language?

Words need vowels otherwise they are nonsensical.

 Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? by C. H. Spurgeon

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years, it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses. My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? ?Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature? (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, ?and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.? No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, ?He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers ... for the work of the ministry? (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll. Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? ?Ye are the salt? (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy?something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, ?Let the dead bury their dead? (Matt. 8:22). He was in awful earnestness! Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of his teaching. I do not hear him say, ?Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow.? Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, ?Come out, keep out, keep clean out!? Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, ?Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.? If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They ?turned the world upside down? (Acts 17:6). That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods. Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire
Because so many gospel halls are now mere glorified social centres I thought this much reprinted article worth yet another airing.  I don’t suppose it will have much impact on my fun loving brethren.

Wine and the Bible. Gleaned from an article by Greg Tyree.

The Lord’s first miracle, “turning water into wine,” gives the wine advocates plenty of ammunition to defend their “right to drink.” But did Jesus turn water into “fermented” wine? (Note: This miracle is not about “wine” but about Jesus’ credibility as the Messiah. However, since wine advocates always refer to this text, we shall consider it for our purposes here.) Let’s consider the text in John 2:1-11:
                                                Remember that the word “wine” does not have to mean “fermented.”The context determines that this is not fermented wine for the following reasons:
1) The same God (Jesus) who wrote that “wine is a mocker” (Prov. 20:1: Wine is a mocker ,strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.) would not have “created” that same kind of fermented wine of which He was so critical.
2) The wedding feast had been going on for three days (the Greek in verse one strongly suggests this, as well as the fact they had run out of wine. The Jewish wedding feasts ran for about seven days). If fermented wine was being consumed here then Jesus was contributing to a drunken brawl! Imagine what the atmosphere would have been like had they been “drinking” for three days.
3) A lot of the “wine” had been consumed since the host “ran out.” The fact that everyone seems “rational” and “functional” implies that they were drinking something other than alcohol.       
4) Jesus “made” about 135 gallons of “wine.” Ask yourself if Jesus made 135 gallons (possibly 2000            servings!), in addition to the three days of wine they had already consumed.
5) Most hosts would serve the best quality of wine at the beginning of a feast, and when the guests had consumed enough to deaden the taste buds (thus, “well drunk”- KJV) they would serve the lower quality of wine. If the guests were drinking alcohol, they would not have been able to distinguish between the two. In other words, Jesus’ “pure, sweet, and fresh” wine was so good, even taste buds that had been “desensitized” by much consumption could tell the difference!               
6) Jesus took His mother to the wedding feast. Jesus was a “gentleman.” Jesus would not have taken His mother to a drunken party.

In relation to the Lord’s supper, read Matthew 26:26-30
This is perhaps the most critical of all the texts considered, for here Jesus establishes an ordinance that must be carried out until He returns! The question is, “Did Jesus use fermented wine to establish the Lord’s Supper; and if so does He expect us to do the same today?”
Let’s be honest. If Jesus did use fermented wine to establish “Communion,” then we should- no, we must- also use fermented wine. Who are we to change the substance of the elements that we are commanded to use?
But there is no need to do that. We shall see here that Jesus did not use fermented wine to establish the Last Supper, nor do we need to utilize it now. Indeed, we must reject the thought altogether. Here are some reasons:
1) This happened at the Passover. God forbade even the presence of “bharm” (yeast, leaven, ferment) at the Passover, because it is the cause of putrefaction(Ex. 34; Lev. 10).
2) Jesus’ words here, and Paul’s reiteration of them in 1 Corinthians, do not include the word “wine.” (Note: Not one New Testament passage of the Lord’s Supper uses the word wine. Just a thought.)
3) Jesus describes what He is using as “fruit of the vine.” This does not require that it be fermented wine, and may preclude it from being intoxicating wine. The vine does not bear intoxicating drink.
4) The Jewish Mishna teaches that four cups of wine is to be consumed by everyone 12 years and up. If this was fermented, it would have been the equivalent of 6 ounces of pure alcohol, or 12 ounces of proof spirit (Kanoy, page 12).
5) Jesus is our High Priest. We have already established that Priests were not to drink alcohol.
6) If leaven represents sin, how can fermentation(leaven) or fermented wine possibly represent the blood of Christ!?
7) Why would God require unfermented bread but allow fermented wine?
Add to this that in today’s environment, churches that use fermented wine in communion expose alcoholics with the worst kind of temptation. You may argue, “But our church gives a choice.” Consider this: is communion the time to establish a “difference” between people (i.e., drinkers and non-drinkers)?
Shouldn’t communion eliminate differences? Also, as both “choices” are being passed to the congregation, won’t the wine, even if declined, be a “stumbling block” to the one who is tempted? This could even cause them to fall. Shame in us for such a flippant and uncompassionate attitude about the most sacred of ordinances!

                                                               6. Jot and Tittle

                                                                    Not a jot shall there fail.
Nor tittle may pass,
'Till the heavens have fled
and sea be all glass.

For the Lord hath decreed;
The Law shall e’er stand.
Iota and keraia
Remain hand in hand.

For once they were given
To ‘stablish the word,
That thundered from Sinai
So Law might be heard

Without jot and tittle
The sense would be dark;
The way be tempestuous,
The soul miss the mark.

So nought be there added
And nought be removed..
The vowels and the letters
Are all of them proved.


                                                                                                 r s

No comments:

Post a Comment