Waymarks 50 August 2007

waymarks 50

 

Report of Open Air Preaching

June5^th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. An elderly man of ethnic minority had some important information for me. He first tested me to ensure I was doctrinally sound. Did I believe in the Trinity. He then told me he believed everything including reincarnation. Poor fellow! At least he accepted a Way of Salvation not because he needed it, he told me, but it might be interesting.

June 6^th LUTON. T.C., standing 25 yards from where pc Henry ^* was murdered two days ago.  The town is very quiet and sombre. There are a dozen or so police standing by the war memorial where  wreaths are being placed, 25 yards to the other side of me. I preach and the sound carries along the street.

A man with an Eastern European accent wants to impart vital information to me. He is elderly and had died several times and each time he was resurrected. What did I think of this? I told him sometimes pills can help but he went on to explain more to me. Like yesterday’s man he believed in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and also the Holy Mother. He didn’t need a Saviour because he had never sinned. I told him of Mary’s confession of God her Saviour (Luke 1: 47) but this ardent Catholic had never seen a Bible. He didn’t believe it anyway. If he ever finally died he would go up, he said. However, he did take a Way of Salvation.

June27th LUTON T.C. The Joss Stick seller was in my place when I arrived. I decided to continue there but inadvertently positioned myself in front of his bag. He was very polite and moved it away for me. He then stayed the whole time I was preaching, even picking up my “cane” when I dropped it. His vocabulary and accent told me he was probably American. 

A lady put her shopping bag down and stood to listen. I thought she was just waiting for someone (as often happens here at the entrance to the Arndale) but when I got interrupted by another lady, she immediately left.

The second lady was the mother of a child I had taught in 1978. I had put a remark on her school report which had affected her choice of career!  I hoped other remarks made in the classroom  had affected her choice of eternal destiny.

June 28^th LEIGHTON BUZZARD. By the Cross. Being an old market town, many shops still observe a midweek early closing. Today was it. Of course I knew this and this is why I came today; there are not many people about. A lack of noise and bustle allowed my voice to carry to the end of the High Street. So a lot of people actually heard the gospel preached.

One man who came to speak to me was the old road sweeper. I first met him with his barrow in Flitwick in 1981. He is a believer and came over from Jamaica in the 60’s. He told me the story he has related to me several times in the past —one market day a man was preaching from the steps of the Cross and the market supervisor tried to shoo him away. My friend asked him if a drunk staggered out of the nearby pub would he shoo him away, or stand laughing at him? The supervisor left the preacher alone.   

July 8^th WOLVERTON. By the Agora. This is now a regular stand for the gospel. Almost always there is opportunity

to speak to individuals and it was so again on this Sunday evening. a woman came out from the pub, beer glass in one hand and cigarette in the other. She was making her way to her house, 100 yards from where we stood. She said she was ashamed we should see her in her present state and showed a degree of guilt. She was, she told us, an ardent Catholic but knew she wasn’t right with God. She stood and conversed with us for a little while, refusing a tract (until my wife persuaded her just as we were leaving). Her friend came out from the pub and tried to drag her away from us, objecting to our “forcing religion down everybody’s throat.

Then a Jesus Army platoon arrived, armed with tracts and papers. They prayed over Paul, who was preaching with us and then surrounded a man by the bus stop who had been listening intently to the preaching, thereby ensuring he didn’t listen anymore. another J A woman walked past, pointing at me and saying in a loud voice that she had heard me preaching in Luton over the last 40 years. I thought this remarkable that she had walked past me many times over 40 years (actually 33 years since I began ton preach in Luton) and being a professing Christian had never attempted to speak to me.

The Jesus Army is now known as Jesus Fellowship Church and is charismatic and ecumenical. Desperate to appear orthodox it has joined the Evangelical Alliance.

 *(We bought our present house from pc Henry’s parents in 1974, the year after he was born.)

July 12^th LUTON T.C. A lady stood by me agreeing loudly with each point I made. Then a man told me I was missing a treat at the other end of the street. I had been aware of a disturbance as I came by. It was a Rock Band. (Always remember “rock” is a synonym for copulation). This man told me they were playing gospel music and in between they were talking about God and were giving out free hot-dogs.  There was a crowd listening but I thought it all hellish and got by as fast as I could. This man, flicking his dreadlocks to one side, assured me I would get a better response if I followed their example. He had been very interested in the hot-dogs.

August 3^rd LUTON T.C. There were plenty of people listening today, including the RAC man. an elderly man stood by, waiting to speak to me. He was another who wanted me to hear his theological views. The terms God and Allah, he informed me, were interchangeable. I told him my God bore no resemblance to Allah and I briefly explained why. He told me the only book he ever read was the Bible. Up to this moment I had thought he was a Muslim. He believed Jesus Christ was both God and man. But he didn’t need a Saviour, thank you, because he had never sinned, and heaven is on this earth anyway. I decided to be more pointed with him and warned him his sin was taking him to hell. He would not be moved but he stayed while I preached to him. 

By the Way....

Ards Evangelical Bookshop is selling a “Two Version Bible” . It might well be called The Double Tongued Bible . We are informed, “This much sought after Bible [by whom, we wonder] has been out of print for 50 years [why, we wonder] and is available in a limited edition reprint. It features Authorized version text, with the Revised Version in the margin.”

The RV bible was the master plan of two enemies of Christ, Westcott and Hort. It never succeeded in replacing the Authorized Bible and was soon discarded. But seeds of doubt were sown in many minds as to the verbal inspiration of Scripture and this is now being repeated by AEB. It is of course a money making exercise but will cause confusion among brethren. Many an untaught brother will proclaim the RV marginal reading as though he is some erudite Bible student, unaware of the depraved background of that reference.

So much has been written concerning the RV that there is no excuse for ignorance concerning it. I will only add here a paragraph by Sir Robert Anderson, KCB—

"In the Revised Version of the New Testament textual criticism has done its worst. It is inconceivable that it will ever again be allowed to run riot as in the work of the Revisers of 1881. When that version appeared, Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln raised the question "whether the Church of England, - which in her Synod, so far as this Province is concerned, sanctioned a Revision of her Authorized Version under the express condition, which he most wisely imposed, that no changes should be made in it except what were absolutely necessary, - could consistently accept a version in which 36,000 changes have been made; not a fiftieth of which can be shown to be needed, or even desirable.

But what concerns us here is not the changes in the translation, but the far more serious matter of the changes in the text. The question at issue between the majority of the Revisers, who followed Doctors Hort and Westcott, and the very able and weighty minority led by Dr. Scrivener, the most capable and eminent "textual critic" of the whole company, was one with which every lawyer is familiar, but of which the Revisers may have had no experience and with which they were not competent to deal."

Anderson was referring to the law of indirect evidence, in this context supplied by the early Fathers, ancient translations, the majority of later mss, etc.  Jurymen Hort and Westcott seized upon the direct evidence of but two or three  ancient mss, as witnesses in order to "convict" the Received Text. These two or three witnesses proving themselves to be perjured whilst the indirect evidence would be acceptable in any just  court of law. His point is that "the principles on which the revision of the text was conducted.....are found to be unsound when judged by the science of evidence.”

The R.V. was never accepted. What is it that compels some of our brethren to quote from it? Dean Burgon wrote more than 100 years ago, "In the end, when partisanship has cooled down, and passion has evaporated, and prejudice has ceased to find an auditory, the 'Revision' of 1881 must come to be universally regarded as what it most certainly is, the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the Age."     — Newsletter 7 Summer 1995 ( Seven Newsletters were issued before the commencement of Waymarks in 1995)        

We learn that some assemblies once thought conservative now have their football teams. They practice “evangelism through sport” but are careful to avoid bible and praying stuff. Another brother informs me that some Edinburgh assemblies hold dances, or have ceilidhs. Others attend gigs.

Young mother: I believe even three year olds can get saved.

Elderly brother: In which case even three year olds even three year olds can go to hell.

THE GAP THEORY

This question appeared in Words in Season Sept.98;

'Is there a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2? Is the word in verse 2 "became"?'

Harold Paisley (brother of the better known Ian) answering this question sees a period of unknown length between verses one and two. Such a view panders to the evolutionists. Without form and void, he informs us, resulted from divine judgment. Upon whom? we ask, but he does not tell us. If he has swallowed the Pember/Scofield lie he will believe in a pre-Adamic race, implying that by one man (Adam) sin did NOT enter in because it was already present. Therefore when man was given dominion over all creation, 99.9% was fossilized so Adam was walking on a graveyard. Perhaps Mr Paisley would like to tell us who or what was judged in Gen. l:l. was it Satan? Or was it by fallen angels that we are to believe sin first entered into the earth?

He will cling to `without form and void' as meaning chaos because in his mind the words can only spell chaos. But the phrase is easy to understand. It means unformed and unfilled. Once God had called this great sphere of matter

into being from out of nothing, He then formed and filled it all in six 24 hour days.

Mr Paisley says 'was' is better understood as 'became'. Apparently he has mastered a couple of Hebrew words that convince him of this. God created the heaven and the earth but it immediately became messed up. Even before the earth and the moon were made. You will note that this earlier race had to live on a non-revolving planet without sun and moon. Or so our 'Christian ' evolutionists would have us to believe.

Why should I rather not listen to Monty White quoting Weston Fields when he says, 'The 'was' of Gen. 1:2 is shown to be the traditional and only legitimate translation of the Hebrew hayeta : How old is the Earth?,- EP. 1985.

Above all I simply believe my Bible. This is what evolutionists and revisionists do not like.. It says WAS and I believe it. So we say to those who believe that changes in modern versions do not affect doctrine, here is one word that does. It is right at the beginning of the Bible. The Gap Theory is a God dishonouring opinion. —Waymarks 15; Winter ‘98

I haven’t heard that Mr H Paisley has changed his mind on this subject.

 AV verses Vindicated

Isaiah 52: 15

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him.

“so now he will startle many nations”. CJB (Complete Jewish Bible).

One must not think that being Jewish, these translators better understand the language.

Rather, they have accepted the variant in Kittel’s footnote to this verse, in his Biblia Hebraica;( my ed. 1909.)

The variant is thaumasontai  from the Greek Septuagint and means “startle”. There are no other variants. This is an interpretation and is not a translation of the Hebrew word nazah  meaning “sprinkle”.

nazah is consistently translated sprinkle in the OT. (24 times) and can apply to blood, water, , and oil, in a good or bad sense. Note the first reference; Ex. 29: 21 and thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron...

The Septuagint is an extremely defective document. There is no evidence it existed before the first century AD or that currently there is a definitive version of it.

The alteration in this verse is designed to deny the Messiahship of Christ.

Some of us remember how Hitler startled the nations, causing them to wonder with great astonishment.

Wilson tells us concerning this word,

The uniform use of the word [nazah] in the sense of sprinkling with blood, in order to purify, establishes a most important application of this passage to the virtue of the Messiah’s atonement.  — Old Testament Word Studies

William Macdonald, in his Believer’s Bible Commentary gives,

But when He comes again men will be startled (NKJV marg.)

In many places Macdonald takes the line of rationalism. His commentary is best avoided. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walwoord is much more reliable. It is available online to those using E-sword.

Matthew 8: 2

There came a leper and worshipped him

Only deity is entitled to worship and here, and in ten other places recorded in the N.T., Jesus accepted worship. Darby did not like the idea of the Lord being worshipped so he changed it to “do homage”. The NIV has “kneeled before” in five of the eleven places.

The suggestion that it doesn’t really matter because the Lord’s deity is upheld in the other six references shows a v3ery careless approach to the Scriptures. Bible believers care about the omission of the truth even if it should be only in one verse.

Matthew 10: 5,8

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,....cleanse the lepers, raise the dead....

Dean ,Burgon who so skilfully dernolished the Westcott& Hort theories upon which the RV was based, was nevertheless not 100% in favour of the Received Text. But then neither were the AV translators.There are a number of places where AV readings are not found in the RT, Conversely, Burgon regretted that the phrase "Raise the dead" which

IS in the RT, found its way into the AV.

Burgon wrote, "when our Lord first sent forth His twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead'. This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists: because it is found in those corrupt witnesses- א B C D, and the Latin copies. But he might also have

pointed out that the words were kept in the RT because of the stronq ancient testimony to them|.

It may be that Burgon's real objection was that the comand to raise the dead did not seem  to fit in with the Lord’s Commission" This, he says, is easily demonstrable. Only he didn’t demonstrate it . That the

Apostles did have the miraculous powers given to them in Matt. l0, and that they used them after the Lord’s ascension is demonstrated in the book of Acts.

Particularly we note Acts 9:36-45. where we read of the death of Dorcas. Peter raised her to life again- He obviously knew he had this power for it would have been very damaging to the furtherance of the gospel if Peter had told her to arise and nothing had happened. It follows also that the men who went to fetch Peter knew that he had been given this power. There would have been no value in calling him to come and look at a corpse if he could do nothing about it. So we need not be surprised to read in the gospels of the occasion when the Lord conferred this power on the apostles. Paul also raised Eutychus from the dead, Acts 20: 9-12.

This is ore of the very few placcs where Burgon slipped up and allowed his judgment to be coloured by subjective reasoning. Dr. Letis has pointed this out in his book,  The Eccliastical Text.

Revelation 20: 11,12

And I saw a great white throne....and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God....

The majority of modern versions omit God from this passage. They refer either to “the One” or to “standing before the throne”.   Ungodly men fear the prospect of giving account to God so He is removed, and the deity of Christ is denied. He said All authority is given unto me to execute judgment. He is to be the Judge on the great white throne.

Jack Moorman supplies the manuscript evidence for “God” (see When the KJV departs from the Majority text. p.108)

historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement!

The Messiah Shall SPRINKLE Many Nations by Tim Dunkin, Studytoanswer.net (reprinted here by kind permission.)

Isaiah 52:15 Promises a High Priestly Messiah.

For lovers of the Messiah, Isaiah 52:15 is one of the most beautiful and precious promises pointing to the Anointed Lord. In it, we see the role of the High Priest being filled by the Servant whom God was (at that time) to send. The promise is that the Messiah would "sprinkle" many nations, making a clear allusion to the expiatory foreshadowing shown to Israel in the Law through the blood-shedding sacrifices. The Messiah, having had His visage marred (52:14) and having been wounded for our transgressions (53:5), so that He might serve as the sin-bearer for His people (53:12), would shed His blood to sprinkle and cleanse the nations. The Law clearly indicated that atonement for sin was made by blood (Leviticus 17:11), and it was His own blood which the marred, beaten, yet triumphant Messiah would use to sprinkle the nations and cleanse their sins from them.

However, in the zeal to obscure the truth of Jesus Christ's Messiahship, some "anti-missionaries" have sought to deny that this prophecy says that the Messiah would "sprinkle" the nations, and thus they try to deny that Christ fulfilled this prophecy when He shed His blood on the cross^* by removing from this passage the reference to the sprinkling. The purpose is so that the connexion between this prophecy and Christ's fulfillment and the observance in the Law of the shedding and sprinkling of the blood for the atonement of the people will be severed. This effort on the part of the rabbis is advanced by one of the many "convenient" mistranslations which appear in the Hebrew Scriptures as translated by the Jewish Publication Society. Isaiah 52:15 in the JPS translation reads,

"So shall he startle many nations, kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they perceive."

Thus, the translation of the Scriptures used throughout English-speaking Judaism completely removes the idea of the Servant "sprinkling" the nations, removes the idea of atonement, and replaces it with His "startling" the nations. This, however, is an illegitimate translation (which also appears in many Christian Bibles as well) whose result is the obscuring of plain scriptural truth on the matter of the Messiah.

The first and foremost point that needs to be made concerning this passage deals with the word itself in the Hebrew. The term alternately translated "sprinkle" and "startle" is a form of the Hebrew verb /nazah/. /Nazah/ is used 24 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and each and every other place where the word is used, it clearly denotes the idea of sprinkling a liquid, whether it be blood, water, or oil. The word /nazah/ has the primitive meaning "to spurt", and differs slightly from the other word in the Hebrew scriptures which also denotes sprinkling (/zaraq/) in that it has more the idea of flinging or spreading a liquid out through sprinkling, while /zaraq/ is used in many places to denote pouring something out or gently sprinkling it (e.g. Ex. 29:16, Job 2:12). /Nazah/ seems to be used exclusively with liquids. Thus, from the straightforward meaning of the word alone, "sprinkle" should be the favoured reading. The word is most often used in passages dealing with ritual cleansing and purifying. Indeed, the Arabic cognate root of this word has the meaning of "honesty, purity, integrity, blamelessness, or being above reproach".

But, many would differ with this assessment. The basis for arguments against understanding /nazah/ in this passage as referring to sprinkling lies with the reading found in the Septuagint. The LXX translation at Isaiah 52:15 uses the word /thaumasontai/ to translated /nazah/. /Thaumasontai/ is a Greek word which means "admire, startle, wonder at". On the strength of this reading, from a translation which is reputed to have been made in the last two centuries BC, the argument is built in favour of "startle". However, it must be understood that the Septuagint is not necessarily reliable as an accurate translation, and the weight of a reading found in the LXX is not sufficient to overturn the clear meaning of a word in the Hebrew which is uniformly understood every other place it appears in the Scriptures (as is /nazah/). Further, the insufficiency of the LXX when dealing with /nazah/ is shown elsewhere, in Isaiah 63:3, where /nazah/ is translated as /kategegon/ (meaning "brought down"), even though the clear and natural understanding of the passage is quite obviously that of sprinkling.

Delitzsch in his commentary^1 <#notes> argues that, everywhere else that /nazah/ is used, it has the liquid as the object of the verb, not the object being sprinkled (e.g. Lev. 16:19, Num. 19:18). Yet it seems somewhat /non sequitur/ to deny the plain meaning of a word in a passage on this basis, especially as the usage in Isaiah 52:15 is not substantially different from the passages Delitzsch uses as support for his argument. The primary difference is simply that the liquid in Isaiah 52:15 which is being /nazah/-ed would be understood as having that action performed on it, rather than this being explicitly stated, if one were to go by the plain and uniform meaning of /nazah/ as it is used elsewhere.

Further, that "sprinkle" is the historical understanding of those familiar with this passage in the Hebrew is shown from several sources. In the Vulgate translation of Jerome, the verse in question appears as follows:

"Iste *asperget* gentes multas super ipsum continebunt reges os suum quia quibus non est narratum de eo viderunt et qui non audierunt contemplati sunt."

The word /asperget/ is the Latin "sprinkle". As an explicitly Christian translation, the Vulgate would not normally carry any weight in this discussion, except for two reasons. One, Jerome translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin from Hebrew, not from the Septuagint Greek. He did this, against much criticism, because he felt the Septuagint to be imperfect and uninspired, and wanted to make the translation from the original language. Second, Jerome's translation was done largely as he was tutored in Hebrew by a Jew who is said to have come to him secretly by night, fearing persecution^2 <#notes>. It seems unlikely that Jerome would not have engaged in at least some consultation as to the meaning of /nazah/ in this passage, especially given the disparity between the usual meaning of the word, and the meaning of /thaumasontai/ into which it is translated in the LXX.

Other historical sources can be seen which support "sprinkle" as the legitimate understanding at this point. The Aramaic targum of Isaiah says at this point "he will scatter many people". This reading, similar to "sprinkle" in the sense that something is being spread about by some sort of physical action (indeed, sprinkling usually involves scattering), suggests that the Jewish commentator on Isaiah who prepared this targum sometime in the first two centuries before Christ understood the word which he translated this from to be a reference to spreading something out (such as would be done in sprinkling), not startling or amazing someone. Further, John Gill notes that Rabbi Ibn Ezra (c.1089-1164) interpretated this clause to be suggesting that the Servant will pour out the blood of the nations as he takes vengeance upon them^3 <#notes>. Again, this seems to weigh in favour of a Hebrew understanding this passage as speaking of "sprinkling" more so than "startling". Further, the Syraic translation of this passage, according to Delitzsch, also follows "sprinkle"^4 <#notes>.

* [I have put this phrase in bold because Mr Dunkin appears otherwise not to give sufficient stress to the necessity of His death in atonement—R.S.]

The argument from the LXX is supported, however, by a contextual argument which attempts to draw a parallel structure between "as many were astonied at thee" in v. 14 and "So shall he *startle* many nations" in v. 15. It is argued that "startle" fits the context and harmony of the passage better than "sprinkle".

However, this argument is less than convincing. There is no real reason to assume that there must be a parallel structure between this verse and its predecessor. There is no readily obvious parallel structure between verses in this portion of scripture. Indeed, to draw a parallel structure between "astonied" and "sprinkle/startle" implies logically that the parallelism be further extended to "visage was so marred...." and "kings shall shut their mouths at him". Yet, this sort of a parallelism, taken to its logical conclusion between verses, then speaks to the exact opposite of the intention of v. 15. In verse 15, the kings shut their mouths (/qaphats/, with the meaning of "drawing together" or "contraction") as a sign that they have been put to quietness by the wonder and glory of what they are witnessing in the Servant. Yet, if the parallelism is drawn to its conclusion, then they are being put to quietness by the witnessing of the marring and corruption of the Servant, not His triumphant position which was first lain out in v. 13, which does not fit the tenor of the passage.

Further, "sprinkle" fits the context of the Servant's Song better, as well as the overall understanding of the place which the Messiah will fill. The whole passage of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 is about atonement, even if modern Judaism wishes to ignore this truth (which is why many synagogues skip over the passage in their yearly readings of the Tanach). It was understood this way, and as applying to the Messiah, by practically all of the rabbinical scholars before and during the formative period of Talmudic Judaism^5 <#notes>. The interpretation of this passage as referring to the nation of Israel itself has only been widely accepted among Jewish theologians in relatively modern times^6 <#notes>.

In the context of the passage, the Servant makes atonement by His suffering for the sins of the people, taking them upon Himself and pouring out His own soul as an offering for their sins. In Isaiah 53, the Servant is depicted as being "wounded for our transgressions....bruised for our iniquities" (v. 5), giving us peace through His chastisement and healing us with His stripes (v. 5), having all our iniquity laid upon Him by God (v. 6), being stricken for the transgression of the people (v. 8), His soul is given as an offering for our sin (v. 10), justifying many (v. 11), bearing our iniquities (v. 11), bearing the sin of many (v. 12), and *making intercession for the transgressors* (v. 12). Note that in this passage, the Messiah is depicted both as the sacrifice AND the one offering the sacrifice. He is giving Himself to bear the sins of the people, to make expiation for their sins so as to *justify* them before God. The Law, of course, says that no remission of sin can be had without the shedding of blood (Leviticus 17:11). Hence, this passage is teaching that the Servant, the Messiah, makes atonement for the sins of the people, which justifies them before God as foreshadowed by the sacrifice of the lamb on the Day of Atonement. He obviously is shedding His blood if he is beaten, bruised for our iniquities, and is striped (lit. whipped) for our healing and salvation (the terms being more or less interchangeable in Hebrew).

Yet, in addition to being the sacrifice, the Messiah also serves as the one offering the sacrifice, for we see again in verse 12 that He makes intercession for the transgressors. Not only is His blood being shed to make intercession between God and man, but He Himself is making this intercession. To make intercession between the nation of Israel and God was the province of the High Priest, which he did once a year on Yowm Kippuwr. The Hebrew Scriptures elsewhere teach that the Messiah was to fulfill the role not only of a King, but also of a Priest. In Psalm 110:4, the Messiah is given the position of being a priest "after the order of Melchisedek". This indicates, as seen from the role of Melchisedek in Genesis 14:18, that the Messiah will be both a King and Priest, fulfilling a dual role. This truth is reiterated in Zechariah 6:12-13, where the BRANCH (uniformly understood to be a reference to the Messiah) would fill the roles of both King and Priest.

Understanding all this, then, it seems less likely that "sprinkle" in Isaiah 52:15 is out of context and harmony with the passage. Indeed, it fits more perfectly the understanding of the Messiah as one who will be smitten and disfigured ("marred" literally means "corrupted", as by bearing the sins which are abomination in God's sight), yet who will also fill the role of a priest making intercession and atoning for the sins of the people. That He would do so for all nations, and not just Israel, is understood then in passages such as Isaiah 11:10, 49:6, and 60:1-3. Indeed, what will cause the kings to shut their mouths at Him is the fact that this one who was marred, corrupted, is yet the one who will stand up and serve as this priestly king, sprinkling the nations. There will be nothing they can say against Him, no more can they do to Him than was already done, and yet this Servant is exalted and extolled by God to the position of priest and king such as they have never heard or seen done before.

Thus, it seems most logical to understand that this passage concerning the Suffering Servant is speaking to the priestly role which the Messiah would (and does) fulfill. The translation of "startle" has little substantial support, and has both

historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement!

*End Notes*

(1) - F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. VII, Isaiah, p. 308

(2) - H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 241

(3) - J. Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible, at Isaiah 52:15

(4) - F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. VII, Isaiah, p.308

(5) - see, for example, M Eastman and C. Smith, The Search for Messiah, p. 17 and The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, trans. S.R. Driver and A.D. Neubauer, p. 374-375, also see A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, whose compilation of rabbinical quotes concerning the Messiah includes many that refer to this set of verses

(6) - see http://www.studytoanswer.net/judaism/servant01.html for a more in-depth analysis of why this interpretation is not correct

The Mythological Septuagint, what is it?

The answer to this question is given below, taken from Samuel Gipp’s Answer Book

 #9  QUESTION: What is the LXX?

    ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.

    EXPLANATION: First, let's define what the LXX is supposed to be. An ancient document called "The Letter of Aristeas" revealed a plan to make an OFFICIAL translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in Greek. This translation was to be accepted as the official Bible of the Jews and was to replace the Hebrew Bible. Supposedly this translation work would be performed by 72 Jewish scholars (?), six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The supposed location of the work was to be Alexandria, Egypt. The alleged date of translation was supposedly around 250 BC, during the 400 years of silence between the close of the Old Testament in 397 BC and the birth of Christ in approximately 4 BC (due to a four year error in the calendar).
    It has become known as the Septuagint, "The Interpretation of the 70 Elders". Also it is represented by the Roman (?) numerals whose combined value is 70, hence L-50, X-10, X-10. Why it isn't called the LXXII I'll never know.
    This so called "Letter of Aristeas" is the sole evidence for the existence of this mystical document. There are absolutely NO Greek Old Testament manuscripts existent with a date of 250 BC or anywhere near it. Neither is there any record in Jewish history of such a work being contemplated or performed.
    When pressed to produce hard evidence of the existence of such a document, scholars quickly point to Origen's Hexapla written around 200 AD, or approximately 450 years later than the LXX was supposedly penned, and more than 100 years after the New Testament was completed. The second column of Origen's Hexapla contains his own (hardly 72 Jewish scholars) Greek translation of the Old Testament including spurious books such as "Bel and the Dragon", "Judith" and "Tobit" and other apocryphal books accepted as authoritative only by the Roman Catholic Church.
    Proponents of the invisible LXX will try to claim that Origen didn't translate the Hebrew into Greek, but only copied the LXX into the second column of his Hexapla. Can this argument be correct? No. If it were, then that would mean that those astute 72 Jewish scholars added the Apocryphal books to their work before they were ever written. (!) Or else, Origen took the liberty to add these spurious writings to God's Holy Word (Rev. 22:18).
    Thus we see that the second column of the Hexapla is Origen's personal, unreliable translation of the Old Testament into Greek and nothing more.
    Eusebius and Philo, both of questionable character, make mention of a Greek Pentateuch. Hardly the entire Old Testament and not mentioned as any kind of an officially accepted translation.
    Is there ANY Greek manuscript of the Old Testament written BEFORE the time of Christ? Yes. There is one minute scrap dated at 150 BC, the Ryland's Papyrus, #458. It contains Deuteronomy chapters 23-28. No more. No less. If fact, it may be the existence of this fragment that led Eusebius and Philo to assume that the entire Pentateuch had been translated by some scribe in an effort to interest Gentiles in the history of the Jews. It most certainly cannot be a portion of any pretended official Old Testament translation into Greek. We can rest assured that those 72 Jewish scholars supposedly chosen for the work in 250 BC would be just a mite feeble by 150 BC.
    Besides the non-existence of any reason to believe such a translation was ever produced are several hurtles which the "Letter of Aristeas", Origen's Hexapla, Ryland's #458, and Eusebius and Philo just cannot clear.
    The first one is the "Letter of Aristeas" itself. There is little doubt amongst scholars today that it was not written by anyone named Aristeas. In fact, some believe its true author is Philo. This would give it an A.D. date. If this were true, then its REAL intention would be to deceive believers into thinking that Origen's second column is a copy of the LXX. A feat that it has apparently accomplished "in spades".
    If there was an Aristeas, he was faced with two insurmountable problems.
    First, how did he ever locate the twelve tribes in order to pick his six representative scholars from each. Having been thoroughly scattered by their many defeats and captivities, the tribal lines of the 12 tribes had long since dissolved into virtual non-existence. It was impossible for anyone to distinctly identify the 12 individual tribes.
    Secondly, if the 12 tribes had been identified, they would not have undertaken such a translation for two compelling reasons.
    (1) Every Jew knew that the official caretaker of Scripture was the tribe of Levi as evidenced in Deuteronomy 17:18, 31:25,26 and Malachi 2:7. Thus, NO Jew of any of the eleven other tribes would dare join such a forbidden enterprise.
    (2) It is obvious to any reader of the Bible that the Jews were to be distinctly different from the Gentile nations around them. Unto them was given such distinct practices as circumcision, Sabbath worship, sundry laws of cleansing and their own homeland. Added to this is the heritage of the Hebrew language. Even today, practicing Jews in China and India refuse to teach their children any language but Hebrew. The Falasha Jews of Ethiopia were distinct among the many tribes of their country by the fact that they jealously retained the Hebrew language as an evidence of their Jewish heritage.
    Are we to be so naive as to believe that the Jews who considered Gentiles nothing more than dogs, would willingly forsake their heritage, the Hebrew language, for a Gentile language into which would be translated the holiest possession of all, their Bible? Such a supposition is as insane as it is absurd.
    "What then," one might ask, "of the numerous quotes in the New Testament of the Old Testament that are ascribed to the LXX?" The LXX they speak of is nothing more than the second column of Origen's Hexapia. The New Testament quotations are not quotes of any LXX or the Hexapla. They are the author, the Holy Spirit, taking the liberty of quoting His work in the Old Testament in whatever manner He wishes. And we can rest assured that He certainly is not quoting any non-existent Septuagint.
    Only one more question arises. Then why are scholars so quick to accept the existence of this LXX in the face of such irrefutable arguments against it? The answer is sad and simple.
    Hebrew is an extremely difficult language to learn. It takes years of study to attain a passing knowledge of it. And many more to be well enough versed to use it as a vehicle of study. By comparison a working knowledge of Greek is easily attainable. Thus, IF THERE WAS an official translation of the Old Testament into Greek, Bible critics could triple the field of influence overnight without a painstaking study of biblical Hebrew. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the existence of the Septuagint on such thin evidence is based solely on pride and voracity.
    But stop and think. Even if such a spurious document as the LXX really did exist, how could a Bible critic, who, in reference to the King James Bible, say that "No translation has the authority of the original language, " claim in the same breath that his pet LXX has equal authority with the Hebrew Original? This scholarly double-talk is nothing more than a self exalting authority striving to keep his scholarly position above those "unschooled in the original languages."
    If you accept such an argument, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!

Questions for the AV Bible Critic

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan? — Taken from AV1611.org.  copyright free.

Beware Bart Ehrman

Ehrman is an outstanding scholar and a leading world expert in Textual Criticism. His works have a great impact on the production of modern versions of the New Testament.

But Ehrman has been described in the Washington Post, March 5^th 2006, as “the fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.”

He claims to have had a “born-again experience” while he was a sophomore, but later abandoned this position, preferring to accept the teaching of his apostate professor, that Mark in his gospel made a mistake. This put Ehrman well on the road of apostasy himself and he ended up denying fundamental Bible teaching, in particular the resurrection of Christ. It was not long before he believed the Bible to be full of error.

On the American TV show The Colbert Report ( which I watched) Ehrman said he was an agnostic and did not believe in God.

He wrote,

I began seeing the New Testa­ment as a very human book. The New Testament as we actually have it, I knew, was the product of human hands, the hands of the scribes who transmitted it. Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reput­edly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrel­evant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the cir­cumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them.—Whose Word is it? Continuum, 2006: p.211.

The truly born again soul is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and CANNOT apostatise.

Ehrman studied under Metzger, another notorious apostate, and is now the leading Bible critic. He is determined to destroy all trust in the Scriptures and faith in God.   He is no different from all the Textual Critics who have gone before him.

 

letter

Dear Ron,

.......It is extremely difficult to abandon the teachings of the Brethren, but I had to do this once I saw so many difficulties in their interpretations of Scripture .I can assure you I was ultra Brethren! Meetings and Conferences were the joy of my life.

So, you “chose Christ”. How was it that you came to believe? You were spiritually dead; so it follows God had to act to save you. Your name, being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life since eternity, you were saved in due time. It is all due to Him in Predestination and Election. It is a mercy that God saved SOME out of the mass. Christ died for His own, as is known in Particular Redemption. He cannot have died for all but only for them for whom He died. Should He have died for ‘all’ then ‘all’ would be saved!.....

No hurry, but I should like the book and the Gosling booklet returned. Postage enc’d.

yours, in Christ,

D J

Maidenhead

Dear D-

you wrote to me, having read a copy of Waymarks, passed to you by a subscriber. You sent me unsolicited literature which I am not interested in reading. I haven’t found any enclosed postage. You describe your assembly as of the ‘Kelly’party. You did well to leave it. I never referred to myself as P.B. as you suggest. I think this is a Darbyite cult.

You do not make any reference to a conversion on your part. Very few, though they escape from a cultish background, show themselves to be saved.

At no time have I accepted the teachings of the Brethren. Every doctrine I hold to is what I have discovered from the Scriptures. I have already told you the prophetic teaching to which I subscribe was largely influenced by studying Ryrie, and Pentecost. I did not accept anything I read until I had checked every Bible reference they gave.

How did I come to believe? I obeyed Scripture. Repent ye and believe the gospel. That is what I did. I did it because I was commanded to do it. Dead indeed! The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. John 5: 24. The voice of the Son of God was the voice I heard on the night of October 15^th 1955. It was the gospel voice, through the gospel preacher that night. I was dead in sin, but I heard because the Scripture is true and powerful. I had the option of refusing what I heard.( He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my word, hath one that judgeth him...John 12: 48.) but I CHOSE to believe and not reject.

You want me to believe, Donald, that the man sitting next to me that night (a colleague of mine) could not believe because he wasn’t on the approved list. That he could not hear and live because Christ having given an open invitation then whispers behind His hand; “but not you.”

To mouth the words “Christ did not die for all” is a foul blasphemy. To suggest that if Christ did die for all, then all are saved, is a puerile misrepresentation of the gospel. The work is done that saves. It is for all. Sadly not all avail themselves of God’s mercy but whosoever  WILL may come. Have you never noticed there is a personal WILL involved?

I reject all five points of Calvinism though they are being promoted more and more.

“Phrases Hallowed”

Simple souls need no coercion

To wholly trust the Authorized Version,

Critics cast their base assertions

Originate their vile aspersions,

Making many a cheap excursion,

Adding to by wrong insertion,

Or omitting by aversion

Phrases hallowed by our Version.

Allied with their servile minions

Hurl abuse, parade opinions.

Genuflect at falsehood's altar

Strangle, as with ancient halter.

Manuscripts, no life, but dead,

As mouldy as royal Gibeon's bread.

Scholarship that's unbelieving,

Deceives itself, while bent deceiving.

Recessions? Just imagination!

Pile them on t'funeral pyre,

Let it mount yet higher and higher.

Lift the banner, 'raise the standard

From those who from the truth meandered.

Translated from the Greek, Hebraic,

Our English Version's not archaic.

Like its Author-once despised

The Text Received-God authorized!

                                                                                       John Glenville

Waymarks 49 May 2007

Waymarks 49

Report of Open Air Preaching

March 20^th DUNSTABLE Ashton Square

This is not a very busy shopping centre when the market isn’t here. I prefer to come on such days, when one is not so crowded in. Even so I estimated 35 people a minute passing by and within earshot for an average of 45 seconds. Stay for an hour and 2100 people have heard at least three or four gospel texts.

One person shouted “shut up” but he may have been shouting at his spouse. Another couple sat on the wall next to me for the whole time I was preaching. They did not seem to notice me.

P- came by.  His grandfather (Malcolm Muggeridge) was an intellectual, a famous personality who was responsible for “discovering” Mother Teresa.  P- once attended a local Evangelical Church and will always stop to talk when he sees me.

March 28^th LUTON Town Centre.

A lady was standing where I usually stand when I arrived today so I stood two yards farther along. She invited me to come closer so I assumed she recognized me as the street preacher. But it transpired she was looking for work and maybe I could employ her. Well, I don’t agree with lady preachers and I don’t employ assistants. She told me she was a carer. Do I really appear that old and decrepit? I declined her offer and sought to weave the gospel into our conversation. She listened and told me a little of her background and how she had arrived from Pakistan in 1967. Was this the first time she had heard the gospel, I wondered. She certainly was not hostile to it.

After this lady moved on I preached for 15 minutes. A young man giving out leaflets had stood nearby the whole time since I had arrived and when I paused preaching he introduced himself. I thought his leaflets might be offering a free holiday in the Bahamas to all morons dialling 0906 but he gave me one and it advertised services at The Redeemed Christian Church of God Victory Centre in Luton.  This is an international organisation and it is a false cult. Its founder boasts of miracles and signs following his ministry. Its gospel appears sound at first hearing but is seriously flawed, having a Pentecostalist base. Evidence of salvation is seen in speaking in tongues. The personality of the Holy Spirit is denied. 

April 15^th  WOLVERTON. The Square.

 It is Sunday evening. Half an hour before our Gospel Meeting starts. We are ten minutes walk from the hall. There are a few people in the square. One man sends his little boy over for a tract and sits reading it while we preach. A youth asks are we JW or Catholic? Neither, we reply. He is presumably unaware that these two organisations do not engage in street preaching. He shouts out a few Bible references as he walks away from us. We “amen”  all Bible verses. One is Ps. 83: 18 which he then corrects to John 83: 18.!! Maybe his parents are JW.

April 18^th LUTON T.C.

 It was difficult to find a place to stand today. The Victory Centre people were already there. I  emailed them to query a statement in their leaflet, “Jesus said ‘You must be born again to return to heaven’ John 3: 3-8” and pointed out this was a false statement. I never had a reply.

I moved up to Market Hill. what a wonderful place to preach. Alas a kiddies merry-go-round was there with accompanying din so I retraced my path to the other end of George Street and found a place by the War Memorial. Here I had a good hearing and was within earshot of the VC pair. They departed shortly after I began to preach. There was as usual no opposition but a few were standing listening.

May 3^rd DUNSTABLE Ashton Square.

After I finished preaching a lady wanted to shake my hand. It was to give me some encouragement, she said. Well, after 33 years street preaching I am still grateful for encouragement. It’s good to know some people are listening. I asked the usual questions, “are you saved?”, “are you sure?” etc. She was sure. But it didn’t take long to discover how confused this lady was. She told me she was already experiencing Jordan and would soon be in the Holy Land. I did not know what she meant. I regret I have a tendency to be facetious and mocking in these circumstances but on this occasion I managed to control myself and just reminded her to be careful around Jericho. She looked very puzzled. Then we got on to “faith” or “miracle” healing. This Baptist lady thought this was still being practiced as in apostolic days.   I had no wish to pursue this line of conversation. It is invariably a waste of time. I asked her why did Paul write, Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick (2 Tim. 4: 20)? Was not that a very callous thing to do for a man so gifted in miracle working, or had the gift left him by this time?

A further outcome of this conversation was her low regard for Scripture. What the Bible says is not too relevant for our exciting times. She said she would like to help me understand these things. She had after all been “saved” for two years. Her bible (only it was not the Bible, it was a NKJV) had contradictions in it. for example Matthew tells us Judas went out and hanged himself but Acts tells us that he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. she told me that Acts did not refer to Judas but to the man who picked up the pieces of silver that Judas had flung down.

Now I knew this poor woman was a Christ rejector on the way to hell. (both references are true of Judas OF COURSE.)

May 15^th LUTON T.C.

I was here last Friday, by the entrance to theArndale, which is my usual place for preaching in Luton. The RAC man had his stall a few feet away and when I began to preach he hurled obscenities at me. So I moved up to Market Hill.

Today there was a far better reception. (no RAC man). One man sitting 20 yards away seemed to be listening intently. When a bench became vacant nearer to me he moved across. When I had finished preaching he came over to speak to me but I couldn’t understand him. Eventually I deduced he was Polish and had been in the UK one week. He already\had a job and was living with his married daughter in Luton. He told me it was a very good thing to hear God spoken about in a public place. He had started attending the Polish Catholic church in Dunstable.

I gave him The Way of Salvation which he received as though I were giving him a large slab of gold. He told me his daughter would help him read it. Pray for a whole Catholic family being reached with the gospel. There are now 20,000 Poles in Luton. There are 40,000 Muslims in Luton and recent events indicate there are quite a few of them with terrorist connections. Probably some of them pass by while I am preaching so pray for these too. 

I hope these reports of open air preaching encourage others to preach publicly. It need only be  for a few minutes at a time. Why not the next time the wife wants to drag you round the shops tell her you will stay in the street to preach the gospel. This will give you a couple of hours which otherwise would be wasted.

 

AV Verses Vindicated

Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?

(Mark 15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)

This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy

We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptable one.

The words from the cross are reported slightly differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.

Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24.

 Not all the Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of the unfaithful spoke half in the language of  Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god.

We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions.

Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. There were no more until John the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.

However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit.

God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time as some allege, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord.

There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,-

Several verses in the New Testament appear at first sight [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably [my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."

But it doesn't say "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article quoted above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible.

Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge the Biblical testimony to the use of Hebrew?

Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular".

We conclude that the Lord spoke in Hebrew alone.

There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.

Romans 9: 29

And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

D Kaus, in his book Choosing a Bible, wites that Paul

uses the Greek word that means “descendants” (sperma, “seed”) instead of “survivors”, thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage.

Kaus is stating that it is not the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himself got it wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didn’t understand Isaiah’s prophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted critic can now help us!

He also wants us to understand that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOT responsible for its authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantly supplied the wrong word.

Take warning — if you do not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture, and if you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible today, there is little likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven.

Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors. Joel 2: 32 is instructive;  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Isaiah did not write of those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. They were those who were called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writing about. God’s survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to hell.

1 John 4: 1-3

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.

Modern versions such as  NIV,ESV etc attempt to dodge the charge of being antichrist by omitting “Christ come in the flesh”. They pretend that they acknowledge Jesus and this is enough. What do they acknowledge? It may be no more than believing a man lived 2000 years ago named Jesus and he lived a good life. They think if they remain silent about the Anointed One foretold in the Prophets to be born of a virgin in the City of David, named Jesus, demonstrated to be God manifest in the flesh then they are not false spirits. The very omission of the phrase declares the producers of these blasphemous versions to be antichrist.

Silence on this vital issue will show the nature of the spirit to be that of antichrist. Thus the platform man denying 1 Tim. 3: 16, God was manifest in the flesh  lets his audience know he has come in the spirit of antichrist.

John is teaching us that Jesus did not become the Christ subsequent to His birth at Bethlehem. He is the One Who came out from God, the eternal Son, the Lord from heaven. The men behind the various parodies of Scripture do not believe this.

By the Way....

In a recent poll to find the most popular books, the bible came out at No.6. This was not the AV or some other verion. It was just the bible, a pudding stone  comprising all perversions and parodies of Scripture lumped together. The multi-million pound bible publishing industry  has succeeded in knocking the Bible down from No.1. The AV Bible of course is not on the scale. It may be Rupert Murdoch, publisher of the NIV, is  not too bothered with this. Much of his money comes from Myspace and pornography.

Harry Potter came in at No.4   □ 

What is the doctrinal position of the “Brethren”? If you want to know, visit “brethren on line”. A list of what is commonly believed among brethren is posted there. Of course this is not an official site any more than Believer’s Magazine is an official organ of the Brethren Movement.

At the head of the list is:-

• verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Bible.

To which we add our amen! This is commonly believed among us. But, TAKE WARNING! this is a tacit denial that inspiration of the Scriptures exists today. To this many of our brethren will add their amen.

Our scholars and those who worship at their feet have not seen an original manuscript. They have not seen a copy of a copy of an original manuscript. Their statement is eyewash. Impressive words are used to bamboozle the untaught. Most of our platform men couldn’t even tell you what the word plenary means.

Here is what is at the head of my list. I believe in the:-

• verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.

Now, do you see the difference? Do you see that the first statement is the cry of apostasy? It is a meaningless statement because those original manuscripts have long since ceased to exist. Brethrenism shares the view of apostate Christendom. It is all confusion, of which God is not the author.

Until the middle of the last century it was commonly believed among us that we were in possession of The Scriptures, generally referred to as the Authorized Version for those of us who speak English. We believed its internal evidence that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. One strong reason for believing this is that conversion brings a soul into a living relationship with the Author. The regenerate soul believes through the Scriptures that God pledged Himself to preserve His word and not a jot or tittle (i.e. written words) would not be lost.

Our modern brethren do not believe God has preserved His word. We now learn  that scholars can alter their bible to suit their own views (they don’t alter MY Bible; it remains the AV) .

If my Bible is not inspired, it is not Scripture. I had better put it in the dustbin straight away. It is worthless.

Those original inspired Scripture manuscripts were handed down and faithfully copied by Godly men through the ages, therefore inspiration remained with those same words. Being God’s words inspiration cannot be lost through translation.

I sometimes like to imagine if copies had been made on transparencies from the original (Greek) up to our present time and then laid on top of each other, individual alterations would be greyed out as I looked through them and I would then see a standard text throughout – I would read the original! It would not make any difference if the first few got lost in the process.

Either we have a Bible we can trust implicitly or we have not. Make up your mind, your soul depends on it  .□

Another doctrine of the Brethren was emphasised at a recent Bible Conference. The subject was “The New Testament Assembly”. Mtt.18: 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them was read and then the preacher spoke on being gathered TO the name. There was no explanation for the change. We were to understand only “B”rethren  do this. The rest of Christendom doesn’t gather TO the name. They all gather to their own names. As Scripture nowhere teaches a gathering to the name it becomes a cult slogan. My Bible  has in which is a faithful and accurate translation in this verse of the Greek preposition eis. We begin to understand a little better the Brethren oppostion to the Authorized Version.

We were later told that the local assembly is the court of final appeal. Some of us thought the Scriptures were the such. In practice if there should be conflict between the opinion of the “oversight” and Scripture then the oversight must be obeyed.

The Scripture gives guidance if court appeals have to be made.  1 Cor. 6: 4 is the answer: if then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.   □

CANDLESTICK v. LAMPSTAND

Any Bible Teacher referring to the Seven Golden Candlesticks in his ministry today would be regarded as old-fashioned, out of touch, an untaught ignoramus. To be acceptable one must speak of the Lampstands, because, we are told, it is "where oil was burnt for light as in the Tabernacle". But there is no mention of oil in Revelation 1 to 3. But it is implied, we are told, because oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, present in the 7 Lampstands. Well then, if interpretation of scripture depends upon implications, you and I also may be free to infer whatever we like from Scripture and we can invent our theology as we travel along.

W. Scott would not even have the stands in his "Exposition". The 7 churches were their own lights. (so today the revisionists are their own gods. They worship their own scholarship). We are aware that the five wise virgins took oil for their lamps and we do know that the candlestick in the tabernacle held oil in its bowls. We know also that this candlestick is spoken of in Heb.9:2 and is the same Greek word as we find in Rev. 1: 12. We think that the A. V. translators, being linguists as yet unsurpassed, knew all this too.

John saw a candle-stick. He did not refer to any light, but to the light holder, so there is no need to change the word at all. Wax candles were in common use in John's day, particularly among the poorer classes. The church in Smyrna was known for its poverty (Rev.2:9). I am persuaded therefore, that what John saw was a candlestick.

We trust that those who so dogmatically insist on "lampstands" never speak of "chandeliers" hanging from their lounge ceilings if they are on electricity.

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; (2 Corinthians 3: 5) It is recorded of William Wilberforce- During an interval of consciousness on Sunday night 28th July 1833, he said “I am in a very distressed state.” “Yes: but you have your feet on the rock” someone replied. “I do not venture,” he cautiously added, “to speak so positively, but I hope I have.” He died the next morning.      John Newton wrote-      “Tis a point I\long to know,      (Oft it causes anxious thought),      Do I love the Lord, or no?      Am I his, or am I not?”                     May we be delivered                   from presumption in this                     all important matter1

This box was published in The Reformer March/April 2007. It is indescribably sad. These were two great men of God but apparently neither of them has sufficient confidence in Scripture to believe in the eternal security of the soul.

Reformism shows itself a doleful and hopeless religion.

Reformism makes the apostle Paul a presumptuous man, for he wrote, I know whom I have believed, an am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 2 Tim. 1: 12.

He knew his soul was secure unto coming again of the Saviour.

He also wrote unto us which are saved 1 Cor. 1: 18. He didn’t hope he might be saved. He knew he was saved. All those who are genuinely saved know it and do not doubt it. The Reformists rarely speak of being saved. They do not understand it. There is no salvation in Reformism.

Being in the faith is holding to the word of God.

Inspiration

(From The Bible at the Bar by W.M. Robertson; P& I; 1930)

1.The Whole, and every part of the Bible is Inspired. This is a matter that can only be settled by the Scriptures themselves. As we examine the Scripture testimony on any other doctrine, so we must on this. What saith the Scripture as to the extent or fulness of inspira­tion ? Let no one say that this is reasoning in a circle. "We take the testimony of a man for himself, provided his testimony on all other matters is true, " and to this test we are perfectly prepared to submit the Bible. Its testimony on other matters has been certified and confirmed by experience, observation, and scientific investiga­tion. We have every warrant, therefore, for believing its witness in this matter. It is full and final. In the passage we have already considered, it is plainly stated that "ALL" Scripture is inspired of God. It is idle to say that in handling historical matters the writers did not require Divine assistance, because their data were obtainable from natural sources. If they did not need inspiration in securing historical data, they certainly required it in their selection of the same. One has only to compare the Bible account of Creation, the fall, the flood, etc., with the Babylonian and other traditions to see the force of this. Moreover, many of the historical portions of the Bible are also prophetic in charac­ter. The history of Israel's redemption from Egypt and subsequent experiences are plainly typical, as is stated by Paul in I Cor. 10. 6-11. It would be impossible to ensure the religious infallibility of the Bible, if we deny the inspira­tion of its historical parts.

2. The Inspiration of the Bible extends to its Words as well as its Thoughts, the Form as well as the Substance. This is commonly termed the verbal theory of inspiration, and is greatly assailed to-day. "No enlightened person, " we are told, "can any longer hold to the verbal inerrancy of the Bible. Scientific and Biblical research have for ever relegated this view to the scrap-heap of out-worn ideas. To be sure, the Bible is inspired, but so are the works of Tennyson, Browning, and other great writers. While the Bible admittedly contains the highest spiritual teaching known to man, much also is dross. While it contains God's Word, revelation is by no means complete in it. The poets, the scientists, and the philosophers also have a divine message, and, though there may be a difference, it is a difference of degree, not of kind. To believe, therefore, that every word of the Bible stands without error as God's revelation to man is, for the modern mind, simply impossible. "

This is characteristic of the attitude of a great many to-day. The objection, however, to verbal inspiration arises very often from a mistaken notion as to what the words imply. The opponents of verbal inspiration conjure up a picture of mechanical transmission, after the manner of a gramophone record that has just been impressed. and ever after reproduces the impressions that have been received. It is difficult, in fact, to doubt that, with many, deliberate and persistent misrepresentation is indulged in the more readily to discredit a view that conflicts with their preconceived notions. The view we hold is as far removed from a mechanical theory as can be. There were real ideas and rational processes behind the utterances of the Bible writers, just as there are real ideas and rational processes behind the utterances of ordinary men. Verbal inspiration

simply means that the language in which these ideas produced by normal rational processes, and yet produced by God, are expressed, is an adequate and accurate vehicle for their communication. If it were otherwise, how could God-given ideas find authentic expression ? It is manifestly absurd to talk of the thoughts or substance as inspired, but not the words or expression, because the thoughts are embodied in the words, the expression conveys the truth; and we know nothing of one except through the other, and as set forth by the other. Consequently, if the words or expression are not inspired, the thoughts or substance cannot be. This is in no way affected by the fact that God employed human agents for His purpose in producing Scripture. The Holy Spirit of God so operated on the finite spirit of man as to secure that what was written should be an exact expression of His mind. In a word, "Inspiration is an activity of God upon men, having for its object such an expression of thought in words as shall reveal to the sons of men the eternal purpose of God. " Dean Burgon's conclusion on this matter is worthy of the sanity and scholarship of the man. He says: "You cannot dissect inspiration into substance and form. As for thoughts being inspired apart from the words which give them expression, you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No such theory of inspiration is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless, and cannot be too sternly put down. "

Robertson’s book The Bible at the Bar, published by Pickering and Inglis, now out of print, shows that my brethren once believed in the Verbal Inspiration of Scripture, though the majority believes no longer. Scripture is synonymous with Holy Bible. P & I were once a leading “Brethren”  publisher.

Questions for the AV Bible Critic

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan? — Taken from AV1611.org.  copyright free.

Princess Diana is in hell

On the first anniversary of the death of Princess Diana a Sunday School teacher informed his class that she had gone to hell. This caused the inevitable furore from parents and those objecting to plain facts being made known as revealed in the Scriptures.

The Archdeacon of Aston, the Ven John Barton, branded the preaching barmy and perverted theology. He said, “Diana was fallible but she tried to make a positive difference to the world.”  No doubt this man was invited to comment because of his hostility to the truth of Scripture.

If Diana did not go to hell she went to heaven. Repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ are essentials for entrance into heaven and she displayed neither. Rather, she was an immoral young woman and involved in Spiritism.

The Scripture tells us Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Cor.6: 9.  The wicked shall be turned into hell. Ps. 9: 17

Those who think that Diana might have repented in her final moments are ignorant of the gospel and do not understand the effects of shock.

Diana died two hours after being involved in a car crash.In the accident she suffered severe damage to the left pulmonary vein resulting in massive blood loss. Her heart was badly damaged and she was unconscious.

If she is now in heaven we must conclude that though unconscious and rapidly dying she realized her sinful state and consciously repented of it turning to Christ, and recognising him to be the Son of God (essential for salvation) she put her trust in Him as her Lord and Saviour.

Enemies of the cross do not like these things taught publicly. But these accounts serve well to bring souls under conviction of sin and then to conversion.

The unbelief of J Ritchie Ltd* and its contributors

(See What the Bible Teaches; Judges; p. 327, C T Lacey.)

I quote from WTBT:

“[Gideon] struggled with the Lord’s estimation of him as a ‘mighty man of valour’ (Judges 6: 12).”

 False! The angel of the Lord had said, the LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.  Gideon took this to mean the LORD is with his people and not that the angel was buttering him up for a future task.

Quote again:

“As far as Gideon was concerned, his current activity hardly warranted the description of a ‘mighty man of valour’, but God saw it differently. He ‘threshed’ (knocked out – 2251) wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.....That Gideon was obliged to knock out his little grain in [my italics] the winepress, a pit sunk in the ground or hewn in the rock, implies the soreness of the Midianite oppression.

Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, and unbelieving commentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D E West) would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he were using a stick, as some suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.

Gideon, instructed by the LORD to throw down the altar of Baal, because he feared his father’s household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night. Judges 6: 27.

The suggestion that Gideon was cowardly is an evil insinuation. It was not a moral fear. If he attempted to throw the altar down in daylight  he would be seen and the task would be made more difficult. He feared these men would try to stop him. How wise of him to do it by night! He knew he would soon be identified in the morning light anyway. He could hardly keep it a secret. He was at all times a valiant man.

The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".

Where oxen trod out the grain they were not to be muzzled.

*J Ritchie Ltd (owned by Lord’s Work Trust) sells The Message, a seriously perverted parody of Scripture).Also The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain. This book which lays the foundation of Progressive Dispensationalism is described thus by Ritchie Ltd,—

“ This 531-page hardback has no equal. We are thrilled to be able to offer to you this fully indexed volume. The Kingdom of God is the grand central theme of all Holy Scripture....  This hard-to –find treasure will teach you more about the Kingdom of God than you thought possible.”

Hard –to-find indeed. It took them 42 years to find it. Who knows what Ritchie’s will produce 2049 AD?

For a critique on this subject, see Waymarks 47 and 48.

 

The New Evangelism

No longer is the gospel preached. This is because the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. 1 Cor. 1: 18. We do not want Mr and Mrs  worldly Wise to stay away from the Gospel\ Service so we shall catch them with our new evangelism. When they come we can tell ourselves that we have made so many  “contacts”. (They used to be called converts.)

The modern gospel is found in School visits, Bible exhibitions, Creation lectures, OAP tea meetings, Mum’s and Toddlers sessions, Hall coffee mornings, YP’s Barbeques, Old Folks Home visits (must be a Sunday night of course).

It is possible that at any of these things a soul may be saved. One may be saved down a sewer.  Jonah was saved while in the depths of the ocean. But what a lot of carnal energy is expended on these efforts.

But we can reach the children by visiting the school, so we are told. Yes, you can get in with the approval of ungodly headteachers (very very few are believers). You dare not preach the truth when you do get in, or you will never get back again. (NB. 1 Thess. 2: 6, John 12: 43). I note that my brethren do not have a distinctive message. It differs not from the “message” of SDA’s Anglicans, Evangelicals etc.

My great-nephew was for a time a paid school visitor, paid by his local Baptist Union church. He has not the slightest comprehension of what it is to be saved. But he could give a nice little Bible story with one or two points made.

How can we reach the children then? They live all around the hall. Go and knock on their doors. Speak to the parents.

Many years ago an assembly wanted to start a Sunday School. Two or three young sisters decided to go door knocking. It was not long before the assembly was running three Sunday Schools, each with 100 children attending regularly.□

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY REJECTS THE "FUNDAMENTALIST" APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE (Friday Church News Notes, April 27, 2007, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a lecture in Toronto, Ontario, on April 16, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, rejected the "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture, calling it "rootless" and "limited" in what "it can contribute to the church." The lecture, "The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing," was delivered at an event jointly sponsored by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges. Williams said it is wrong to treat the Scripture as an "inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct" ("Archbishop of Canterbury: Church Needs to Listen Properly to the Bible," Anglican Church of Canada News, April 16, 2007). Williams implied that the Bible is not in all parts equally "the Word of the Lord." He gave two examples of the alleged wrong use of Scripture. The first was John 14:6, which he said "could not be used simply as a trump card in discussions with other faiths." The other was Romans 1:27, which he said could not be used as a "definite proof text" against the morality of homosexuality. In this lecture Williams quoted many heretics approvingly, including Karl Barth and Soren Kierkegaard. He said that critical biblical scholarship is an "underappreciated gift." Williams said it is wrong to read the Bible in a fragmentary manner and to ignore its context, but the fact is that the fundamentalist approach is not guilty of this. We understand very well that the Bible must be interpreted first by its context and second by comparing Scripture with Scripture. These are foundational fundamentalist principles of Bible interpretation. What Williams is promoting is something far different from this. He is using historic theological terms but redefining them by his liberal dictionary. When you remove the theological mumbo-jumbo from his lecture, what you have is a man who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired in a verbal-plenary, infallible sense. You have a religious politician who wants to chart a compromising middle-of-the-road course in the midst of end-time apostasy. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5). Taken from FCNN emailed 27/04/07.

This lecture can be read at www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/News/archbishop.htm

John 14 begins with the words Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. Whatever these faithful believing godly disciples believed concerning the revealed nature of God, revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures, Jesus Christ said, believe the same in Me. What a trump card!! The words of Christ show up the lies and deceit of all world religions. Here is a Man in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Williams is exposed as a leader among the sons of hell.

My Bible and I

We have travelled together, my Bible and I.

Through tempest and sunshine I still kept thee nigh.

Though dark were the days, thy comforts were strong,

"Fear not, I am with thee" I still made my song.

My solace and comfort when trouble was nigh.

We were still close together, my Bible and I .

My stay and my comfort, by day and by night,

My treasure, my succour, my comfort, delight;

My solid foundation from earth's rudest shock,

I am safe in the shadow of thee, blessed rock.

With thee for my guide, I can Satan defy;

We will hold to each other, my Bible and I .

Thou sword of the Spirit, revealer and guide,

My doubts are dispelled when I've thee by my side.

The Master, Himself, soon put Satan to flight

When appearing to him as an angel of light.

With thee I can conquer, and Satan defy,

We'll keep closer together, my Bible and I.

So now who shall part us, my Bible and I ?

Shall Satan's temptations when age dims the eye?

Come storm or come sunshine, come sleet or come rain,

My stay in the past, I will trust thee again.

Be my song in the night, if preparing to die,

We will still be companions, my Bible and I.

SELECTED.

This poem is found on the last page of The Bible at the Bar.