waymarks 46
report of open air preaching.
June 21st LUTON
TOWN CENTRE. There was a wolf prowling again today. He was wearing sheep’s
clothing but I knew this wolf. He was waiting to get his fangs into any sheep
that came too close to me. I’ve seen him attack goats as well.
Sure
enough a sheep soon stopped right by me. It was a lady who told me she was a
believer. Instantly the wolf began his approach as I began to speak to her. He
was carrying his own bait in the form of a tract. The sheep\made off just in
time or he would have attempted to lure her away from me.
Once
long ago this wolf stood beside me and began some weird howling and growling. I
asked him what was the matter and he told me he was praying in tongues.
When
I stopped preaching the second time another sheep came across to me. This sheep
told me how he had attended Sunday School as a boy but later became a drug
addict. When he came to the end of himself he remembered the gospel he had
heard as a boy and turned to Christ for salvation. He is now in fellowship with
believers in the town.
The
wolf kept his distance.
Some
police came by and listened for a moment before driving off. I do not involve
myself in racist stuff and there is no need to dwell on specific sins such as
sodomy. We just preach “all have sinned” and “there is a Saviour for all”. We stress the need for repentance.
August 2nd LUTON
T.C. I didn’t see S─ when I began to preach. He was sitting on a bench
immediately in front of me but hidden by some shrubs. I saw the man next to him
turn and listen intently throughout my preaching. When I finished S─ got up and
told me he had urged this man to listen very carefully to the preaching.
Also
just as I stopped preaching two Muslims walked past and one was quite
vitriolic, shouting obscenities at me as these god-fearing devout men are prone
to do. Most Muslims ignore me I’m glad to say.
August 6th WOLVERTON
T.C. Sunday evening, just before our Gospel Meeting. Several youngsters stood
listening. Then a couple on the pavement opposite showed increasing annoyance
with our message. The woman came across first to tell us we had no right to
inflict our views on others. She began to speak of all the suffering she had
endured, and told me I wouldn’t know about these things. It is surprising how
many think Christians live a”charmed” life, immune to the vagaries of life. She
departed and her husband came over, displaying a degree of anger. There is a
psychology of open air work with which one needs to be reasonably familiar. I
greeted the man with a smile and a cheerful “hallo” and a momentary flicker
across his face told me I had won this man. He too had suffered much. Hs son
(from an earlier relationship?) had commited suicide and today he had forgotten
it was this couple’s anniversary. They were both in despair. We told him a
little more of the Gospel of the peace of God. He replied that religion was
responsible for all the wars in this world. He later told us how he frequently
ended up with too much drink in him and would often get into a fight on the way
home. I asked him to name his religion. He accused me again of interfering
in people’s lives. His wife had complained that nobody cared about them. I
asked the man was the “good Samaritan” also an interfering busibody?
He
needed to know of a Saviour Who came seeking the lost.
By
this time I concluded that we would not be getting to our Gospel Meeting, but
we made it with two minutes to spare. We parted with a hand shake and on first
name terms. He is Andy. Do pray earnestly for him. I believe we shall meet him
again though he declined to accept an invitation to the meeting.
As
we left the police arrived, called, we think, by the proprietor of the Indian
Restaurant opposite who maybe thought he was going to lose a couple of
customers. They had been about to go in when our gospel preaching distracted
them.
June-August MILTON KEYNES. There is about ¼ of one million people living
in MK. There is only one Gospel Hall here, with six members. (Why don’t people
like us?) We maintain an open air testimony in several locations around our
hall. The opposition is mild to non-existent. Almost always some people come
out of their houses to listen and passers-by accept tracts. This is done
immediately before the Sunday evening Gospel Meeting. Despite this it is rare
to find a stranger coming into the hall. New Bradwell where we are situated has
1000 dwellings which has been tracted many times and we are only five minutes
drive from the city centre. We haven’t given up. Our responsibility is to
scatter the seed and the Lord gives the increase. Personally, I don’t like
preaching to crowds, though we do not pass opportunities by when they arise. I
give a couple of examples below.
LUTON.
Some time in the 80’s. I dropped the children off for school and drove home via
the town centre. Seeing a long queue outside the dole office and the time being
8.30 am, I stopped, stood
on the pavement opposite the queue and preached until the whole queue had
disappeared sometime after 9 am.
COVENT GARDEN, LONDON.
This is no longer a vegetable market, but a highly popular tourist centre.
Seeing a number of street performers, I waited for a gap between performances
and then stepped in. I soon learned my mistake when security guards grabbed me
and hustled me away. A ll “performances” have to be pre-booked and approved. On
discovering that their territory ended at the edge of the concourse I stood
with my toes on the line and began to preach again to the same audience. The
guards now stood and glowered at me. To my astonishment the crowds turned to
face me and within ten minutes I
estimated that I had an audience in excess of 300. This wasn’t all my doing. I
had a heckler. He was already sitting on the wall next to me as I began. He was
a superb heckler and at the end I thanked him for his participation. I do not
mind and certainly do not fear hecklers. I find my spirit rises under these
conditions.
Also
several folk stayed to talk and I spent a long time there speaking to
individuals.
AV Verses Vindicated
Psalm 8: 4,5
What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made
him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour.
The ESV has “....yet you have
made him a little lower than the heavenly beings. A footnote then gives -or than God: Septuagint, than the
angels.
In this case the Septuagint
has a correct translation and the ESV has a false humanisitic translation. This
is born out by the reading in Hebrews 2: 6,7 where the Greek word aggelos which can only be translated
“angels”. The ESV has “angels” here with
no footnote so plainly they did not need one in Psalm 8.
Isaiah 14: 12, 15
How art thou
fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.
Floyd Nolen Jones wrote the
following concerning these verses. I quote them here to give an answer to the
false notion given by D Oliver in Truth and Tidings, August 2006, that
Lucifer may be referred to as “the Old Testament’s Morning Star”.
(We see how the blind
acceptance of modern versions demonstrated repeatedly in the above mentioned
magazine leads to blasphemous doctrines.)
However, the New International Version
pens:
How you have fallen from heaven O morning
star, son of the dawn ... but you are
brought down to the grave.
Indeed, the New American Standard and all
the modern versions read almost exactly
like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited
throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer
[G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,
(Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications, 1993), pp. 40-55]. In verse twelve of the
King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the
continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same
being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby
eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet
the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew
language.
The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar which translates "Lucifer, son of the
morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before
1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the
Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar
or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the
morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star -kokab nowhere
to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the
KJB . [the ESV also reads, “how are you fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of
Dawn!” – Ed.]
– not twice as the modern versions
indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star"
dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their
editors also know that kokab boqer
is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7
(i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah
14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel
(lleyh, Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old
Testament.
Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet.1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus
Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal. 4:2),
meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify
unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of
David, and the bright and morning star.
Thus it must be understood that the
identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in
the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is
connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").
The wording in the modern versions reads
such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather
than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of
"Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less
than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by
placing II Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying
the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But
Lucifer (helel, lleyh) does not mean "morning star". It is
Latin (from lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring)
meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light
bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times
the word "Lucifer" (helel, lleyh) has been associated in
secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.
Among the modern versions, only the King
James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this
central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James
Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an
achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560
Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".
The clarion has been faithfully and
clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the
above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has
been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the
Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies
before you.”
─ Which
Version is the Bible; Floyd Nolen Jones; p.vii, 17th Ed. 1999
Isaiah 45: 7
I form the light, and
create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.
Some of our brethren take
exception at the thought of God creating evil. They reject the plain statement
of Scripture because they do not understand it.
Evil, in this verse, is the
English translation of rag. It is used first in Gen. 2: 9, And out of
the ground made the LORD to grow....the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Its
fruit was forbidden, but God created it!
Jacob, concerning Joseph,
thought an evil beast hath devoured him. Gen. 37: 33. He would not have
doubted that God had created this evil beast.
Jonah 3: 10 reads God repented of the evil that he
had said that he would do unto them.
Micah 1: 12 tells us, evil came down from the LORD
unto the gate of Jerusalem.
No doubt there are many more
verses that the critic regards as offensive. They do not understand the
Scriptures and they do not understand the nature of God.
God cannot sin and rag
does not imply the presence of sin. It may simply be adversity, or rottenness ─
the evil figs of Jer. 24: 8 were not sinful we presume. Evil is everything
which is not good, beneficial, wholesome. God in His permissive will allows a
lot of this.
If our brethren would only
read a little more of the Bible and not wrench verses out of context they would
save themselves a lot of embarrassment.
1 Timothy 2: 12
But I suffer not a woman
to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Some are telling us that this
verse could be translated from the Greek to read “But I suffer not a wife to
teach nor to usurp authority over her husband.”
A correspondent (seeking to
promote a book Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women) writes to give
assurance that this is the correct translation. He knows because “as a Classics
graduate, [he] can vouch for the accuracy of the exposition of the key passages
from the Greek New Testament.” The verse here in question is one such passage.
How does my correspondent’s
erudition compare to that of John Spenser? This man was chosen Fellow of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford
in 1579. He had been elected Greek lecturer at this college at the age of
nineteen. McClure wrote “of his eminent scholarship there can be no doubt. (The
Translators Revived) .
It was Spenser and his team
who translated gunē in this verse
as “a woman”. He thereby was in agreement with Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, Even the Rheims translation has
“woman”
Modern Versions such as the
RV, NIV, ESV all have “woman” as do the
more “way out” versions, God’s Word, the Message. I haven’t found a version
reading “wife”.
We need hardly point out that
the AV translators were well aware that gunē may be also translated
“wife”.
The context decides whether
“woman” or “wife” is required. Therefore one does not require the help of Dr
Modern Apostate Scholar in fixing the reading. Confidence and faith in the God
given English Bible is all that is needed for an understanding.
“her husband” is an
interpretation and not a translation. There is no possessive pronoun “her” in
the Greek Text.
We must beware those who consider themselves
to be cleverer than the Book.
1 Peter 2: 2
As newborn babes, desire
the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
The
ESV, being based on the perverted RSV, reads “Like new born babes, long for the
pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.”
So
the ESV teaches that salvation occurs over a period of time and it is based on
self effort. Salvation is a free gift and one neither grows up to it nor can
one work for it.
The
ESV spiritual milk we note has nothing to do with the Word. The ESV is the
perversion of Scripture now being promoted by the North American Gospel
Hallers; people who once regarded themselves as conservative fundamentalists.
By theWay....
1.I read the following
statement on the Truth and Tidings, June 2006 Website:
As the King James Version approaches its 4000th
birthday and its Elizabethan English becomes more and more obscure and
misleading, we ought to consider what version
might replace it. I believe that the English Standard Version should be
the heir-apparent, due to the quality of its original-language texts, its
essentially literal translation method, its excellent English style, and its
conscious attempt to stay connected with many of the familiar KJV words. –
David Vallance.
Jack
Moorman had this to say about the English of the Authorized version:
Coming back now to the English in
which our Authorized Bible was written, it is an evidence of God's providence
that after nearly four centuries, so little can be found to be archaic.
Certainly there are "profound differences" between current and
Elizabethan English. But, the AV is not Elizabethan English! As a
comparison will show, there is a great difference between AV English and
the wordy, affectations Elizabethan style.
Far from our Bible being a
product of that day's literary style, the English language after 1611
owes its development to the Authorized Version! "The King James Version
was a landmark in the development of English prose. Its elegant yet
natural style had enormous influence on English-speaking writers" (World
Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the AV is ever fresh and
lucid while most else from that period is quite difficult to read.
Edward F. Hills speaks on the
misconception that the English of the AV is Elizabethan:
The English of the King
James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact,
it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is
biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the
translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1 940)
pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with
the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the
observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James
Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult -
but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the
Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the
translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these
translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been
replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version
Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218).
In 1604 when James I authorized
preparations for a new English version of the Bible, a watershed was reached
not only in the history of Bible translation, but of the history of the English
language itself.
─ (taken from the Way of Life
website. Also
the following article concerning the ESV is taken from the same source.)
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION. This Bible [is] published
by Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers of Wheaton, Illinois. It
is alleged to be an "inerrancy-based edition of the Revised Standard
Version, and several prominent Southern Baptists have lent their names to the
project. These include Paige Patterson, president of Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary; R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary; Carl F.H. Henry, founding University, Birmingham. All of these men are on the
advisory council for the English Standard Version.
Why would these men have anything whatsoever to do with the perverted Revised
Standard Version? It was completely modernistic in its production. Practically
all of the translators were Modernists who denied the miracles of the Bible. I
have documented this extensively in the 321-page book Myths about Modern Bible Versions, available from Way of Life Literature. Walter Bowie claimed that the Old
Testament is a mixture of folklore, legend, imagination, and tradition. He
questioned the resurrection of Christ. Millar Burrows said "we cannot take
the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with divine authority what we
must believe and do." Henry Cadbury claimed that Jesus Christ "was
given to overstatements." Fleming James said we do not know what happened
at the Rea Sea. Clarence Craig denied the
resurrection from the dead and the second coming of Christ. Edgar Goodspeed
said that Genesis contained "Babylonian myths and legends and Canaanite
popular tales." Frederick Grant claimed that the New Testament account of
Jesus’ life and ministry is "not entirely historical." William Irwin
even taught that the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" is an "almost
unfailing mark of spuriousness"! This apostate Bible translator also said
that Zoraster and other heathen philosophers were equal in validity with the
prophets of Israel.
James Moffatt believed we must be "freed from the influence of the theory
of verbal inspiration." Willard Sperry thought the book of John is not
accurate in recording the sayings of Jesus.
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew
Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and
on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th
corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum
Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.
Therefore its word for word translation while
commendable in itself is nevertheless a word for word translation of a
perverted text.
BEWARE OF THE MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Friday Church News Notes, March 16, 2001 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The modern Bible versions are built upon the foundation of modern textual criticism. With very few exceptions, the fathers and architects of this "science falsely so called" are unbelievers who deny the infallible inspiration of the very Scripture they handle. All of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament fall into this category, including Bruce Metzger, Matthew Black, Kurt Aland, and Catholic cardinal Carlo Martini. The UBS Greek New Testament, in turn, is built upon the foundation laid by men such as Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913), editor of an influential Greek New Testament of 1898, author of Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (1901), and co-editor with Kurt Aland of the Novum Testamentum Graece. The Revised Standard Version NT of 1946 was based on Nestle's text. Nestle unhesitatingly denied biblical infallibility. In his Introduction to NT Textual Criticism he claimed that it is possible that the authors of the New Testament did not write what they "thought or intended to be read" (p. 23). This is a complete and bold denial of divine inspiration. In fact, Nestle believed the writing of the New Testament was completely happenstance. "Their disappearance [that of the original manuscripts] is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the epistles, are occasional writings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation" (p. 156). Like most other fathers of modern textual criticism, Nestle believed the Bible was to be treated like any other book.;He said the task and the method [of textual criticism] are the same for all literary productions." Beware of modern textual criticism.
In the light of all this,
remarks suggesting the AV Bible to be obscure and misleading are false. The
“superior” text of the ESV is shown up for what it is; a depraved mockery of
Holy Scripture.
2. I read the following in a
certain Christian Magazine:
The
phrase “in heavenly places” in the Authorized Version is consistently given as
“in the heavenlies” in the original text.
This is one of the many
examples we come across of woolly-mindedness in the criticisms of the
Authorized Version of the Bible. “The” original text has not been seen for
around 1900 years. There is no document available that verifies what was in
that original text, that is, apart from the Received Text. None can prove that
the RT is not identical to the “original text”, i.e. the autographs; that which
was penned by the writers of Scripture. Bible believers accept that what they
have in the AV is what God first gave via the pens of men who wrote the various
books of the Bible.
Then, we do know the original
text was written in Greek, not English. On our writer’s premise we can argue
equally well that “in heavenly places” appears
consistently in the original and the vast majority of all manuscripts
for it faithfully translates the Greek adjective epouranios. The
adjective qualifies a noun and good English demands that one is supplied so we
have the italic places.
The word is used five times
in the Ephesian epistle. All are plural and not all relate to same place. There
is one place in 6.12 that is different from the first four. It is the domain of
the rulers of the darkness of his world. The Spirit led wisdom of the AV translators
becomes apparent when we read in 6:12
high places. Christ is set at the Father’s right hand in the
heavenly places (1: 20) and
He does not cohabit with evil powers. Their
high places are atmospheric (see 2: 2)
Beware the Bible Corrector
With
lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad. Ezeliel 13:
22, ....and have spoken lying words in my name.
Jeremiah 29: 23.
My
people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray. Jeremiah 50: 6
Can
New Testament shepherds do this? Would those who are recognised as leaders and
Bible Teachers wilfully lead God’s people astray?
The
New Testament gives many warnings of this happening. Of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts
20: 30
Some
have crept in unawares, but more often it is “of your own selves” that men have arisen who speak perverse things
They
have probably been in the gatherings of the Lord’s people from childhood.
There
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, [this does not teach that these men were converted ] and
bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 Peter 2: 1
There
are all manner of old wives fables being peddled among us today. Various forms
of Calvinism are being thrust upon us, that Christ did not die for the sins of
all. And worse: that He did not die for our sins, but that they were
expiated during the hours of darkness. Then He went to hell at His death.
But
there is one error, universal among us, deadly and soul destroying, that
teaches there is no existing single Book that can be described as the word of
God without defect. Those promoting this wicked lie are those who mount our
platforms and pulpits and tell us that the Authorized Bible is wrong in this
verses, and that, and the next.....
They
will quote from various depraved
perversions and parodies of Scripture in preference to the AV Bible.
They will quote as authorities men such as Westcott and Hort, who were hostile
to the Evangelical Truth. Or they will
quote men such as W E Vine who drew their “inspiration” from the polluted wells
of German rationalism.
Beside
W and H on the RV committee was Vance
Smith, a Unitarian. Earlier textual critics were Lachmann and Greisbach, both
deniers of fundamental Christian doctrine.
Those
who are our Bible teachers and shepherds need to know that -
The
men who produced and continue to produce critical texts with their subsequent
translations, so-called, are untrustworthy in their beliefs and practices.
The
men behind the AV were men such as John Bois, who could read and write Hebrew
at the age of six.Lancelot Andrewes was fluent in fifteen languages. All the
translators of the AV were of similar ability. They were godly men and were not
all high Anglicans. They refused to have one outstanding scholar on their
committees because he had a poor testimony.
They
had before them the Greek Text which had become known as the Received Text, a
text which was a faithful representation of the text of the 2nd
Century.
The Greek critical texts are themselves
depraved. They
are based on defective manuscripts which have been seriously tampered with.
The
critical texts are ever evolving. They are hybrid things which represent what
liberal scholars consider to be the reconstructed Greek text of the New Testament.
Thus they must be continually updated as some new thing comes along. These men
do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture. They hold that only the
original manuscripts were inspired but they have never seen them because they
were most certainly worn out by the first generation of Christians. They do not
believe in the preservation of Scripture.
From
these the multitudinous modern versions are spawned.
The method of translation is superior.
. Most modern versions are based on dynamic equivalence. In
practice this means paraphrasing rather than translating ─or making it up as
you go along. Words may be added or left out as one pleases. This is done in
defiance of God’s warnings against adding and subtracting from His word. Those
who use these perversions of Scripture share in the guilt of the
perpetrators.
The Authorized Bible is based with very few exceptions on the
translation principle of formal or verbal equivalence. It is acknowledged that
in two places the idiomatic language of the mother language makes formal
equivalence difficult. The two phrases are “God forbid” in the New Testament (which
was a literal translation in 1611AD) and “God save the King” in the Old
Testament. Here it simply means “may the king have a long life”.
Formal equivalence means that nouns were translated as nouns,
verbs as verbs, etc, Equivalent tenses were used, and of course the meaning of
the word was preserved in the receptor language.
The theology of the Authorized Version is superior.
Because of the use of defective manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus
and the Vaticanus, and because of the humanistic method of translation used by
most modern scholars, the theology of modern versions is flawed in many places.
Claims are made that there are no changes in doctrine between the AV and modern
versions but these claims are false. Dr Moorman lists 356 doctrinal passages
that have been changed the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.
Some examples are:-
1.should not perish (John 3:
15) removed. So there is no hell in this verse. The NIV, NASB, and
NKJV fn ) follow suit.
2.on me (John 6: 47) removed . So it doesn’t matter what or on whom one
believes in order to gain everlasting life. NIV, NASB, and many others follow
suit.
3. of Christ. (Romans 1: 16) removed. The gospel can no
longer be good news.
4. yet (John 7: 8). removed so that Christ becomes a liar.
The theology of the AV Bible is not defective in any verse. There
have been no doctrinal errors shown up in any place. Indeed there are no errors
of any kind though men have sought to suggest otherwise. We have an infallible
Bible. It is based on Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of proven pedigree.
God had promised My words shall not pass away. Matt. 24:
35. Every word of Scripture has been preserved. No word has “fallen out” as the
scholars tell us. Neither have they been scattered through thousands of
manuscripts so that we have to rely on apostate scholars collecting them
together for us.
We have in the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture a Bible that
is wholly the inspired word of God,
“The Anvil of God’s word”
Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s
door
And heard the anvil sing the vesper chime;
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with blasting years of
time.
“How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter all these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he; and then, with
twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out,\you
know.”
And so I thought, the anvil of God’s word
For ages, skeptic blows have beat upon.
Yet tho’ the noise of falling blows was
heard,
The anvil is unharmed─the hammers gone.
John Clifford
Nestle's Text
Nestle produced his Greek New Testament in 1898. Westcott and Hort had already produced theirs. JND had already produced his translation from a variety of Greek texts according to his whim. Nestle's text (17th ed.1941) was used to produce the N.T. of the RSV in 1946. The 'Here's Hope Jesus Cares for you Roman Road Edition of the New Testament New American Standard, 1960' used the 23rd ed. Of Nestle's Text.Not all modern versions follow Nestle alone of course. The RSV Catholic Edition, 1993, is based on the UBS 3rd ed. Greek Text, now replaced by the 4th ed. Which is identical to the Nestle-Aland 27th ed. Greek Text. Confused? Doesn't Satan intend you to be?
Now some facts about Nestle himself. Firstly, in common with all textual critics, he did not believe in verbal inspiration. He wrote of 'the possibility that what the author wrote…. Was not what he thought or intended to be read'. (Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p23; Williams and Norgate; 1901).
He did not think that God wanted to preserve His word beyond Apostolic days, for, writing of the disappearance of the original manuscripts he wrote, 'Their disappearance is readily understood when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the epistles, are occasional writings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited circulation'. Ibid. p156)
So the book we call the Holy Bible is not really God's book anyway. Nestle thought that God never intended the Church to have any settled, enduring Book. This gives men licence to mess around with it just as they fancy. Certain men crept in unawares. You recognise them today when they pronounce from the platform, 'The Nestle Text renders it.…'
Nestle taught that the NT is to be regarded as no different to any other work of literature. He wrote, 'the task and the method [of textual criticism] are the same for all literary productions.' Thus any element of faith is rejected together with divine intervention in the giving of Scripture and its preservation. He goes on, 'the task is to exhibit what the original writer intended to communicate to his readers.' (Ibid.p156). Note "intended"! The concern is not with what was actually written but what the critics think the writer intended to write if only he could have expressed himself satisfactorily.
This is the history of textual criticism. Most alterations to Scripture were made in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD by heretics such as Origen who thought they knew better than the writers of Holy Scripture what should actually by on the sacred page. Modern critics now spend their time shuffling through a few ancient manuscripts looking for changes that will substantiate their warped views of /Scripture. We point out that the vast majority of manuscripts support the text of the AV.
That modern critics believe that the NT writers needed to be corrected from time to time is seen when G D Fee wrote, 'For the early Christians, it was precisely because the meaning was so important that they exercised a certain amount of freedom in making the meaning clear.' (Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism; 1993;p195). What a wicked smear! We have an alleged example in Mk.1:1. The critics tell us that Mark actually wrote 'It is written in the prophet.' And then he quotes Malachi and Isaiah, not appreciating that they were two separate prophets. Early Christians realising Mark's blunder altered the reading to the form found in the AV, as it is written in the prophets. If that should be true then obviously neither form can be God-breathed Scripture for God cannot inspire error and God does not inspire alterations to His word.
Nestle’s text, based on the Westcott Hort text is essentially the
Catholic text of Jerom’e Vulgate.
(This article was written by me and was first published in
Waymarks before 1995)
*****
More from Floyd Nolen Jones
“The
ordinary reader naturally assumes that the changes have resulted from supposed
advances made in the ongoing study of Greek which have sharpened the revisor's
skill in translating. However, the shocking answer to these questions lies in
the fact that there are two distinctly radically different Greek texts upon
which the New Testament in English
(or
any other language) is based. Moreover, the Church for centuries has honored
only one of these as the Holy Word of God. The other was rejected by the early
Church during the 3rd to 5th centuries as a depraved gnostic alteration of the
true text. The early Church's rejection of this second text relegated it to an
early grave. However, with the
advent
of modern archaeology and the so-called "sciences" of higher and lower
text criticism, it has arisen inexplicably from its sandy Egyptian grave
(Beware of returning to Egypt!).
Thus that which was rejected as a
spurious
text by the early Church and its successors down through the centuries is today
being accepted as genuine.
Strangely,
in the past one hundred years, this "mummy" has been resurrected and
once again has been offered to the Church as authentic –
only
this time the sleeping Church has not seen the danger. Yea, most are totally
unaware that such an entity exists”
Versionist Unbelief on the Internet
I recently got involved in a “Bible Version Forum” on the Internet. The
question of versions was being debated and I was interested to know the
spiritual standing of those contributing. So I asked contributors individually
if they were saved. The question provoked quite a degree of contempt from some
while most just ignored the question. The only two who were prepared to make a
public acknowledgment of salvation were the two who held to the AV bible. I am
not saying that all who hold to modern versions are unconverted but it
certainly appeared so on this particular forum. There are a number of reasons
why our brethren hold to modern versions. They may be influenced by the
“scholars”. They are so clever, how can they be wrong? Supporters of the
“scholars” will often tell us they are, or were, godly men. The inference from
that being that any in disagreement with the “scholars” must be ungodly men.
Our brethren do not want to appear unscholarly when they occupy the teacher’s
platform so they must ape the scholars in their criticisms of the word of God,
the AV Bible.
Others are uncertain because they have not personally examined the weight
of evidence in favour of the AV bible.
However, I believe that because the AV Bible is the proven word of God it
is under immense attack from Satan in these closing days and therefore those
who are his instruments in attack are very largely unregenerate men. What folly
to think that these men could not find their way in to OUR circles of
fellowship. They crept in unawares in Jude’s day. What blindness to think they
could never be lauded as the chief men among the modern-day brethren!
Received by email.
Dear friend,
I feel I need to point to the fact that what you
share on your site is very much the fruit of a very traditional, conservative
and old fashioned view of Christianity. Praise God that Jesus is alive today in
the 21st century as he has always been and as such His word is still
alive today, whether in “high” English or “common” English.
By the way why once again discuss about
translations? Or have you forgotten that Jesus did not speak English but Aramaic
or, to put it in modern terms, “common English”?
In love to all
Alex.
Dear Alex,
Thank you for
your email and for looking at my website. You say that what I share is the
fruit of a very traditional, conservative and old fashioned view of
Christianity. What I share, is the fruit of my own labours and research. It is
not the result of a biased view, for I
had to change my mind many years ago when I realized the NIV that I had bought
was not what it claimed to be. It is not a bigoted view because I have the
works of most of the leading Textual Critics on my bookshelves and I have read
them before publishing my own conclusions.
What is wrong
with tradition? Paul warns to separate from every brother that walketh
disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.2 Thes.3:6 If
you will not have tradition under any circumstance, then on the authority of
the word of God, I bid you farewell. Tradition
based on Scripture is essential for the child of God. If you are
speaking of the traditions of men (Col.2 :7) then we must beware them. Modern
versionism is the tradition of men. It is based on an apostate scholarship
which men highly esteem. The Bible which I believe in is the one “handed down”
through the centuries, having a proven pedigree, which no modern bible has.
The child of
God, following his Lord and Master will be conservative, because his Lord and
Master is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Heb.13:8.
His unchangeability is true conservatism. Jude urges us to contend earnestly
for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. V.3. The faith¾ its
practices and precepts¾ have been delivered once and for all.
They are valid today without the need for any updating. Those determined on
change are the liberalists. They are marked by a carelessness of attitude in
worship, being casual in dress and in language. They are ‘into’ Contemporary
Christian(?) Music with its devilish beat. They do not live lives separate from
the world. They love the world with its theatres and football and television.
And being worldlings they use the worldlings modern versions. They simply do
not like the straight paths. Yes, I do indeed seek to maintain the old
conservative values. That’s because I have been converted.
You may call
me ‘old-fashioned’ if you will. What I believe and practice is not out of date.
We are careful about our language in prayer to God. Our womenfolk cover their
heads in the gatherings of the Lord’s people and they remain silent. Our godly young
women do not parade themselves trousered, bob-haired, mouths painted, and
jewelry hanging from their ears. They are not seen on the beach near-naked
either.
I believe it is faith in God that you describe
as old-fashioned. Perhaps you hold to things new-fangled? They are the things
produced by an apostate Christendom.
I don’t know
anything about “high” English. I do know that the translators of the NIV went
down to the New York
ghettoes to gather their common (rather, gutter) English.
I do know that
my AV Bible is written in plain English, a large number of its words being of
one syllable.
You say that
your Jesus is alive today in the 21st century. I don’t recognize
him. He bears no relationship to the Christ of glory in Whom I have trusted
these past 50 years. I find my Saviour outside the camp and still despised and
hated by the world.
Lastly, you
ask ‘why once again discuss about translations?’ While wicked men are foisting
their money making perversions and parodies of Scripture on an apostate Christendom
we raise our voice against them and encourage believers to maintain their
confidence in the pure word of God. The Lord spoke Hebrew. There is no evidence
that He or the apostles spoke in Aramaic. That is an old wives tale on a par
with Darwinism and the Gap theory.
Heard at the back of the Hall
Young man: Brother A─ is a
good sound brother but he will not defend the truth if it means a loss of
preaching engagements.
Sister B─: I sometimes think
my son isn’t saved.
Sister C─ : Why is that? Is
he misbehaving?
Sister B─ : Not at all; he
just shows no desire to be on the platform.
A preacher on the fence
From out of the millions of the earth
God often calls a man
To preach the Word, and for the truth
To take a royal stand.
‘Tis sad to see him shun the Cross,
Nor stand in its defence
Between the fields of right and wrong:
A preacher on the fence.
Before him are the souls of men
Bound for Heaven or Hell;
An open Bible in his hand,
And yet he will not tell
All the truth that’s written there,
It haveth an offence—
The joys of Heaven, the horrors of Hell—
A preacher on the fence.
Now surely God has called the man
To battle for the right.
‘Tis his to ferret out the wrong
And turn on us the light.
And yet he dare not tell the truth,
He fears the consequence.
The most disgusting thing on earth
Is a preacher on the fence.
If he should stand up for the wrong,
The right he’d not defend;
If he should stand up for the right,
The wrong he would offend.
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
God often calls a man
To preach the Word, and for the truth
To take a royal stand.
‘Tis sad to see him shun the Cross,
Nor stand in its defence
Between the fields of right and wrong:
A preacher on the fence.
Before him are the souls of men
Bound for Heaven or Hell;
An open Bible in his hand,
And yet he will not tell
All the truth that’s written there,
It haveth an offence—
The joys of Heaven, the horrors of Hell—
A preacher on the fence.
Now surely God has called the man
To battle for the right.
‘Tis his to ferret out the wrong
And turn on us the light.
And yet he dare not tell the truth,
He fears the consequence.
The most disgusting thing on earth
Is a preacher on the fence.
If he should stand up for the wrong,
The right he’d not defend;
If he should stand up for the right,
The wrong he would offend.
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
No comments:
Post a Comment