Evernote for Ministry Research


I’m always on the lookout for anything that can assist me in cataloging and storing resources. When I first started this blog, I wanted to give appropriate references. What I needed was a reference manager, and I couldn’t find one. Now I have Zotero, but for a while there, all my research was lost. If that ever happens to you, I wrote an article on how to get it back. It takes like 21 steps.

I also have been looking for a way to save webpages. I’ve done it in Zotero, and I’ve saved to PDF. But often I’m in a hurry, and the endless “save to” “Save as” process of saving a web page to PDF was truly irritating.

And it left you with no real way to catalog what you saved. So to write an article sometimes took hours, if not days. The worst was when I saw an article on an official Seventh Day Adventist website where they credited the man who influenced Charles Taze Russell’s corrupt theology as being “A genuine Seventh Day Adventist.”

It created a hoo-rah of controversy when I published the post, and the SDA website pulled the quote from the article.

Enter Evernote. If I’d had Evernote, I could have saved it as an article, added keywords, and then clipped the address to Zotero. No kidding. Real quick to do.

If you’re involved in Christian ministry, Evernote is a tool you need. I think the best bet is to get the Plus membership, at $32 a year. I’ve gone a year with it at the free level, but some months I’m pretty much stopped cold by the 10th day because I’m almost at my free limit. I’m either going to get the Business level (which is on sale) or the plus level.

Get into the habit of clipping things. Have a default category, then plan out an admin day every month where you go through all your clippings and categorize them into the correct notebooks, and add appropriate tags, like “quote later” “Heretic”, etc.

Advertisements

The Trojan Horse of Christianity Pt. 1


Christianity has been betrayed from within.

By people pretending to be Christian.

We’re afraid to call it what it is, but it doesn’t change things. False teachers abound. We accept blindly false teachers, Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholics and Mormons, because our Christian leaders vouchsafe them.

I will tell you instead we’ve been betrayed.

The Trojan horse, as you remember, is  a fable about soldiers hiding inside the statue of a horse, left at the gates of Troy. The Trojans took the horse inside the city, and when they all were asleep, the Greeks jumped out of the horse, opened the gates, and let the Greek army in, who slew the city.

I can’t think of a more apropos description of what’s happened in Christianity today.

  • We never censured Billy Graham for cooperating with theological liberals and Roman Catholics, so now we accept them.
  • We never censured Chuck Swindoll for his oft-repeated statements against Fundamentalism, so now most Christians are manipulated in their opinions. And many of these Christians think of themselves as Fundamentalists!
  • We never struck down books by Karl Barth, so his poison still infects, saps, and kills tissues within the body of Christianity.
  • We never cried foul about Rick Warren and the huge danger he presents within Christianity today.
  • Our Christian book stores refused to take out Rob Bell’s books after it became apparent he was a false teacher, and denied Hell. When you deny hell and espouse Universalism, then you’re calling Jesus Christ a liar. And I’d like to stay far away from you at the Great White Throne judgment. The excuse of the book stores is, “Well, we don’t carry that book, because it’s unBiblical.” Yes, and so is his Nooma videos and his “Velvet Elvis”. But they make money still. The book stores will continue to sell Velvet Elvis as long as it makes them money, whether it’s unBiblical or not. And it is most definitely unBiblical.
  • We accept C. S. Lewis as Christian, and somehow never see his Universalist heresies written in his writings. Our eyes pass over the pages, somehow not seeing where he states, plain as day, that he doubts the veracity of the doctrine of Christ’s substitutional atonement. That doctrine is FOUNDATIONAL to the Christian faith.
  • We accept the idea that Christianity can be practiced in different ways – after all, Methodists do things differently from Presbyterians who do things different from Episcopalians, who do things similar to Roman Catholics, and Seventh Day Adventists do things oddly, and much different from us, and why, a Mormon ran for President as a Republican and spoke about God, so he must be a Christian!

The reality is, there’s only one right way to do a Baptism. It’s by immersion. There’s only one right meaning. It’s to show obedience in an outward sign. If you say, “Well, my denomination does things differently, and here’s why….” I can tell you why.

You’re wrong.

Things that are not how the Bible teaches it is error. If you know it to be error, but do it anyway, it’s heresy.

Go ahead. Tweet that or Facebook that or… whatever you call that.

If it’s a serious enough denial of the Christian faith, it’s apostasy.

There’s only one right way to be saved – salvation by grace through faith. If your denomination teaches that any practices of Christianity impart additional grace, you’re a heretic, an apostate. That Denomination is teaching lies straight from the pit of Hell. You’re denying the Cross of Christ. You’re saying His sacrifice is insufficient.

And I’ve read this in Presbyterian web sites.

There’s only one meaning of the Lord’s supper – it is in remembrance of the Lord, a memorial.

Nothing mystic happens to the bread and wine. Doesn’t matter how high you lift it, what words you say, what gestures you do, whether or not you ring a bell or not. It’s bread. It’s grape juice. It’s not somehow the mystic transformation or transubstantiation of the bread into flesh, or the substance of flesh. It’s bread. We do this to remind ourselves of the price paid for salvation.

“My denomination believes differently.”

Then your denomination has it wrong.

“There should be room at the table for denominational differences.”

Do we understand that our understanding of some parts of Christianity are not graded on a curve?

Your view of Jesus Christ is pass/fail. If you believe anything other than He is God in human flesh, eternally co-existing with the father, then – fail.
If you believe in anything other than salvation by faith through grace – fail.

Failure in that area of the test leaves one writhing in unending torment forever.

If you believe anything other than salvation being a recognition that you are a sinner condemned to Hell and cannot save yourself, and that you must repent and call upon Jesus Christ to save you – fail.

Fail in this case is a synonym for “hell”. Because that’s your final destination..

That’s the Trojan Horse of Christianity. We’ve seen too many false Christians and did not immediately reject them. Billy Graham should have lost his fame, his support, and Christians should have rejected his ministry by 1950, when he began to embrace the worst theological liberals and heretics, and turn his back upon Fundamentalists.

Christians should have recognized years ago that Chuck Swindoll is opposed to those who literally believe the Bible, which brings up questions. By the way, has anyone noticed Swindoll literally has nothing to say, and says it well and prolifically?

I’ve literally heard him pass off a sermon illustration as a true story he got from reading Readers’ Digest. I’ve read entire books by him that pass from one sermon illustration to another, without actually saying something! Don’t believe me? Tell me what his call to action is. When you write a non-fiction Christian book, you inform, then request a call to action. Tell me what Swindoll’s call to action is. Go ahead.

See what I mean? He has nothing to say, lots of it, and says it well. Because apparently nobody else seems to notice he has nothing to say!

How about this quote? In light of what I’ve said about the Bible and having it right or wrong, read this – “There are too many shades of theological opinion in a large denomination to lump them all off as liberal, neo-orthodox, conservative, fundamentalist, or what have you!”

No. You either have it right, or you have it damnably wrong.

And the speaker is Billy Graham. Here’s the question. I’ll answer it the right way, myself.

“Do you think that churches such as The United Church of Canada and the great liberal churches of the United States that are active in the ecumenical movement and whose ministers study and respect the work of Paul Tillich and other great modern teachers are ‘apostate’?”

I don’t know what you mean – I don’t know about the United Church of Canada. I don’t know Paul Tillich. I do know theological liberals, and they are indeed apostate, if they were even saved to begin with – and the Bible teaches that if you apostate, you never were saved.

If you do not believe the Bible literally, you’re hell bound for all eternity, with no way to avoid it. There’s nothing you can do to stop it.

But the Jesus Christ of the Bible, God in human flesh, one third of the Trinity provided a way. If you believe these things, and you believe Jesus Christ is eternally God and able to save you, then repent, pray forgiveness from Him, and trust Him to save you.

And you shall be saved.

Why I couldn’t Sign the Online Petition for Inerrancy


A few years ago, I ran across the statement of Inerrancy on  the internet… somewhere. I can’t remember exactly where.

But the statement was a very short statement of “I believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant and complete in the original manuscripts…”

I couldn’t sign. I emailed them and explained why. I don’t have a copy of it because it was a form submission. So I’ll re-write it, add to it so there’s no doubt, and leave it here for all Christians to see.

“Dear sirs,
I am a champion of Biblical Inerrancy. I firmly believe that the Bible has no errors, is perfect, inerrant, inspired of God. I would love to sign your online petition, but I cannot.

You see, your current statement – although well thought out – contains a loophole that will allow any heretic, theological liberal or Bible denier to be able to sign it in good conscience and not mean it at all.

Your document claims that the Bible is inspired only in the original Manuscripts. Since we no longer have those autographs (the original manuscripts), your document is tantamount to saying exactly what the theological liberals are saying!

I can’t in good conscience sign something that claims the Bible I have in my hands is not preserved or without error. Inerrancy either means the Bible we have is without error, or it does not.

We can’t have it both ways.

My Bible is God breathed. My Bible is perfect. My Bible is without error. My Bible is inspired by God. My Bible is inerrant. I agree with the Chicago statement on Inerrancy, with the exception of Article X – because my Bible is perfect, given by God, perfect in every way, preserved, like silver refined in fire seven times (Psalm 12), and not limited only to the original Autographs.

My Bible that I hold in my hands is God’s word. Flawless. Preserved miraculously by God’s protective power. The churches of God have ALWAYS possessed God’s word. They never lost it, do not need it rediscovered or re-invented by Godless skeptics masquerading as “Scholars.”

Scholars like Metzger, Aland, Griesbach, Wellhausen, Martini, Bengel and Tischendorf we do not need. Scholars like D. A. Waite, Edward Hills, John William Burgon, and Philip Mauro are indeed what we need instead.

My Bible is translated from God’s manuscripts of the Textus Receptus, and not flawed Greek manuscripts written by heretics, Gnostics and Arianistic Christ deniers like Codex Vaticanus, or unsaved Bible forgers like Codex Sinaiticus. My Bible is translated from God’s preserved Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew text, and not from a flawed Hebrew Manuscript invalid under Jewish Halakhic law like the Ben Asher manuscript.

My Bible exalts Jesus Christ as the Eternal Son of God, Immanuel, Alpha and Omega, the Word of God, eternally God, the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the World, Messiah, Son of Man, Son of David, nailed to a tree to suffer for me, bleed for me, and die in my place, rising on the third day, Alive forevermore. In my Bible that I hold in my hands, Jesus Christ did not think it robbery to be equal to God. In the Bible I hold in my hands, He is the middle person of the Trinity, The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. In my Bible that I hold in my hands, the Ethiopian Eunuch confessed to Philip that he believed that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

My Bible that I hold in my hands needs no correction. It needs no editing. It needs no revision.

My Bible is perfect. My Bible is the very word of God, and IS the words of God.

And anyone who cannot state that, or sign a declaration saying that, should be fired from every Bible college, seminary, Christian University and college, Sunday School, pulpit and church.

Theological liberals are not Christians. A Christian is saved. A Christian believes their Bible is literal and true. A theological modernist is not a Christian. A Theological progressive is not a Christian. They are not saved. They are hell bound unless they repent and cry out to God, on their faces, begging for mercy, begging for Jesus Christ to save their souls, repent, and get saved. If they do not, an eternity of suffering in a literal hell with literal eternal fire awaits them, consigned to outer darkness, and weeping and gnashing of teeth.

We should not need statements of inerrancy. But presented with one properly worded, a Christian should not hesitate to sign it.

By signing your document as it is worded, I am stating I do not believe the Bible in my hands is perfect, inspired, the very word and words of God, without error, inerrant. I cannot sign something like that.”

“Philip C. Dean”

There never was an answer.

Textual Criticism


“The Bible version issue must be faced BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDATIONAL… The Bible version issue must be faced BECAUSE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ONLY ONE SIDE OF THIS DEBATE IS GIVEN TODAY.” (David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia, pg. 66)

This article is going to be a little long, but I encourage you to read it, to study this issue, because I will tell you it is the most important doctrinal issue facing Christianity today. Why? If you do not have the right understanding of the Bible, the core element of the Christian life, how will you determine your doctrine? How will you live, not knowing what to believe?

We’ve all seen the standard line in Bible teacher’s statements of faith… “We believe the Bible to be inerrant, and inspired in the original manuscripts.”

The great thing about that statement, is that you can claim Genesis is a myth, that Christ never rose from the dead and was just a good man, and STILL put that in your statement of faith, and be telling the truth.

Why?

Where are the original manuscripts?

Gone. Faded away.

So you can claim they say whatever you like. Who’s going to prove you wrong?

The issue has to do with textual criticism. Textual criticism is a series of statements invented by Wescott and Hort to defend their work against any complaints from Bible Believing Christians.

So, what exactly is Modern Textual Criticism?

“the struggle to REGAIN the original form of the New Testament” (Constantine Tischendorf, quoted in Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 126)

Regain. The implication is that the text was lost.

Let me briefly explain the history of the Greek Text, and someone let me know where it was lost, please?

The original text of the New Testament was written as letters which were circulated to all the churches. It would be copied carefully, and then the original letter sent on. To put it simply and bluntly, THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL TEXT of the Bible, where you opened it up and it was all 29 books of the New Testament.

The VERY FIRST TEXT would have been when the first church finally got Revelation in 95 AD and added its text to their collection. We finally would have had the completed New Testament text. Hold that thought, because every step of the way requires a miracle to think that God would preserve His Bible – which indeed happened.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18 (KJV)

Here’s my first point – If you believe in Modern Textual Criticism, you do not believe the Bible literally, as Jesus Christ states in Matthew 5:18 that the text of the Bible will NEVER pass away while Heaven and Earth exist.

Second point…. If you don’t believe Matthew 5:18, what ELSE do you not believe?

This issue of accepting Modern Textual Criticism is a major issue, as it almost literally can be used as a yardstick to identify who is a false teacher and who is not…

ALL of the original First Century churches would have compiled copies of the New Testament. The Christian churches began facing fierce opposition, before the New Testament was even completed, under Domitian and Nero. It is recorded in the Talmud the fierceness with which Rome dealt with Holy Books not of Roman origin. Rabbi Akiva was tied to a stake, doused in oil, then wrapped in a Torah Scroll – then set afire. Akiva cried out as he burnt alive that he could see the glowing red letters of the word of God floating up to heaven before him. The scene so moved the Centurion who set Akiva afire that the Centurion jumped onto the pile of burning wood and wrapped his arms around Akiva, where the two of them burned to death together. The Centurion also shouted out he could see the letters burning and rising into heaven before them.

The New Testament churches copied all the words of the Bible and circulated them, so that every family could own one. Churches began to scatter as affliction and persecution rose. Romans found Bibles nad burned them. THey found Lectionaries (portions of Scripture copied for responsive readings) and destroyed them.

The state church was instituted by Constantine finally, becoming the roman Catholic church… who added to the persecution, burning all Bibles they found. You have to ask a LOT of questions about why would the Roman Catholic church burn all the bibles they find? Facts are, they did burn them.

Finally, as periods of persecution began to finaly die away, men began to collect all the handwritten Bibles, in many different languages, and compared them.

Despite some minor spelling mistakes, 99.99% of them all agreed word for word, letter for letter.

That’s a MIRACLE. If I assigned 30 students to copy a chapter from a book, there’s going to be massive contradictions, missed words, spelling errors, dropped lines where the eye finds the same word in two separate lines, but misses most of one line and begins copying the next line starting from the repeated word. This actually happened very rarely among all the texts.

There’s a man named Will Kinney who has researched this issue in some detail. He’s not the first person to do it – it was done by Scrivener, by Stephanus, by Beza, and even by Dean John Burgon. Will Kinney can literally tell you in many cases, “you can find that in the Chester Beatty Papyrii, in Manuscript number….” If you’re really interested in this issue, contact Mr. Kinney.

Scrivener, Beza, the Elzivier brothers and Stephanus all did this work, comparing the New Testament manuscripts in many different languages. Stephanus spent so much time studying it, that in his writings he began to decry and object to everything his church taught – because he was a Roman Catholic priest, and he began to realize that there were huge inconsistencies between what the Catholic church taught and what the Bible said.

The work of these men compiled the Stephanus’s 4th Edition Greek Manuscript. Beza and the Elzivier brothers compiled their own. Miraculously, they were all almost the same word for word.

This work has become called the Received Text, or Textus Receptus in Latin. It represents the Bible as miraculously preserved by God through over 1600 years. This family of manuscripts, as well as Bibles by the Waldensians, the Catharists, the Donatists, and other ancient Baptists was used to translated all of the early Bibles into English.

The history of the Bible passing to us is a miracle story. It is beyond belief. It proves the divine hand of God in preserving His word, just as written in the Psalms, just as Jesus Christ promised!

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Revelation 20:11-12 (KJV)

Here’s an important point, point number three…. For there to be a judgment, there must be a preserved, inspired word of God somewhere. Where? In Heaven? There could not be a judgment day, if the word of God cannot be found on Earth. We could protest to God that we had no idea, we had no Pure and Inspired, Preserved word of God on earth by which to judge how to be saved, how to live holy lives, what to believe about whether Christ was God or if the Trinity was Biblical!

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

If you believe in Modern Textual Criticism, you cannot believe that the word of God is Inspired, you cannot believe it is Preserved… and you must forever be a little suspicious about “Should this word be in this verse? Should this verse be in the Bible?” You forever become YOUR OWN AUTHORITY over what you believe the word of God is.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV)

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Last, if you PARTICIPATE in Modern Textual Criticism, you cannot possibly be saved, and the Bible even says that. Your conscience becomes so seared that you will not respond to the Gospel of Christ, and turn to be saved.

Okay, now let’s turn to the “official history” of the Bible as given by Modern Textual critics.

The word of God supposedly was corrupted and edited by Pious Scribes, who added the same words to the same verses all over the world in manuscripts separated on three continents. These Pious Scribes were somehow very busy, as they supposedly did this in the 4th century, and found time to even go back to manuscripts much older than this, and miraculously add words to lectionaries, codexes, miniscules, majescules, papyrii and scrolls. And somehow left no real sign of adding the words.

If this sounds completely stupid, impossible, and illogical, then you’re right. Print this page out, and add several words to 15 sentences randomly. And make sure you can fit the words in in such a way it doesn’t look like you did it. Oh, and your handwriting has to match the print.

Impossible? Well, you just disproved the first and foremost theory of Textual Criticism, that some pious Scribe added words to all the Greek texts. How many texts would he have to add them to?

Only about 5,280 or so, dating back to the first four centuries. I’m not even counting the ones from after AD 500, just those from the time of the mythical “pious Scribe”.

The theory says he added the words to one text, which served as the master text from which the others were copied. But… the texts that are part of this family are actually found on three different continents. And many date from before the time of the “pious scribe”. So, again, to do this he’d have to travel, and add the words to all the manuscripts.

The utter impossibility of this cannot be emphasized.

There HAS to be a willing desire to corrupt God’s word to want to engage in Textual Criticism.

There’s a recording of a man speaking at a church in the 80’s, who’d been a teacher at Tennessee Temple University. He was called on the carpet for being King James Only (and for teaching Peter Ruckman – this part I won’t excuse, as Ruckman is most definitely a heretic). The teacher asked the chairman of Tennessee Temple, “What gives man the right to edit the word of God?”

The answer was, “Scholarship.”

The teacher asked exactly the same question I would have at that point. “So, you’re telling me, if I took every class possible at Tennessee Temple and became a scholar, I, a sinful man, would have the RIGHT to choose what words belong in the Bible, the word of God?”

The chairman answered, “Yes.”

Brothers and sisters, I at this point have to cry foul. I’ve proved the miraculous nature of the preservation of God’s word. I’ve proved the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy demands preservation, as the Bible calls for it. If you believe in an inerrant Bible, you must believe in a preserved Bible.

Here’s the kicker – if you do not believe in preservation, you do not believe in inerrancy. The two go hand in hand. If you do not believe the Bible was preserved, then you do not believe it is inerrant and inspired.

If you do not believe in an inerrant, inspired, preserved word of God, I’m a little worried about your Christian walk.

So, now, let’s analyze the men who engaged in the first textual criticism. Wescott and Hort were men who, judging by their own words, their own writings, did not believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible. And they were hostile to the received text, the Textus Receptus. Why? It contradicted their favorite teacher, who was a humanist, a modernist. The Textus Receptus advocated that Jesus Christ is God, that there is a Hell for any who reject Christ. It speaks of fasting and prayer. It tells us Jesus Christ was without sin, the perfect sinless lamb of God. That He’s coming again.

This was offensive to Wescott and Hort. It was offensive to Tischendorf, who was given sponsorship to travel the middle east looking for a text, ANY text they could use to replace the Textus Receptus. Why? Because all the modernists were opposed to it.

A week before the sponsorship ran out, Tischendorf found himself at the Monastary of St. Catherine, surrounded by Pious Scribes. he found a manuscript in a trash pile, and dubbed it Codex Sinaiticus. The Manuscript looked unused, and in excellent condition. So good, it looked like it had been written just a few years before.

Tischendorf returned, told his sponsors, who gave him the money to go back and buy it. He bought it and brought it back to Egypt. The Monks had been a little amused he wanted to pay so much money for a useless codex.

Tischendorf announced his “Discovery”, to great publicity and fanfare.

Until a suspected manuscript dealer announced to the press there was a problem. the dealer explained he was a forger, he’d been forging manuscripts for years. And he explained that he’d created Sinaiticus at the beginning of his career, and dismissed it as “Clumsy”.

Tisachendorf waited for the furor to die down… then began touting his discovery again as if nothing ever happened. Nobody ever investigated the claims of Constantinus Simonides, the forger who claimed to have written Sinaiticus.

Sinaiticus was handed over to Wescott and Hort, who busied themselves with trying to translate it. The problem was, it showed many editings, sometimes as many as ten men editing it. And it was incomplete, missing words, verses, chapters, even books of the Bible.

It also was written in the wrong form of Greek, Attic Greek, which dates to the Maccabean period, not to the time of the New Testament, and certainly not afterwards.

Wescott and Hort additionally had an emotional attachment to the copy of Codex Vaticanus they had. Not the original ,but a copy. Both Wescott and Hort wrote that they instinctively felt that Vaticanus was the most accurate manuscript.

Based on a hunch. they decided that if there was a conflict between the two manuscripts, they would side with Vaticanus – a manuscript which also showed many signs of editing! Including a handwritten note saying, “thou fool! Remove not the old reading!”

Now Wescott and Hort had the unenviable task of trying to get readings from the two manuscripts that agreed. Aleph (Sinaiticus) and V (vaticanus, sometimes called B) both disagreed with each other in tens of thousands of spots. Dean John Burgon sarcastically wrote it was easier to find where they disagreed to find where they agreed!

So WEscott and Hort wrote down their new Greek text, mostly relying on Vaitcanus, as Sinaiticus was such a sorry mess. The text was completed in 1886.

Whenever you see a footnote in your modern Bible that says anything about the “oldest and best mss”, they are referring to that manuscript compiled by Wescott and Hort in 1886. This man-made manuscript, based on the guesses of two unsaved modernist men who questioned the Bible, did not believe in the deity of Christ, and scoffed at miracles, is considered to be older than the second century mss. belonging to the Textus Receptus.

It is neither “oldest” or “best” manuscripts – it is a heretical piece of blasphemy, removing any verse that offended Unitarians. No blood, no fasting, no deity of Christ, no sinless nature, no pre-existence, no vicarious atonement except in the most rudimentary form….

…and Christians swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Why, these men are SCHOLARS!

Here’s a list of some (not all) of these “scholars”:

UNITARIANS: ohann Wettstein, Edward Harwood, George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, Joseph Thayer, and Caspar Gregory;

RATIONALISTS: Johann Semler, Johann Griesbach, Bernhard Weiss, William Sanday, William Robertson Smith, Samuel Driver, Eberhard Nestle, James Rendel Harris, Hermann von Soden, Frederick Conybeare, Fredric Kenyon, Francis Burkitt, Henry Wheeler Robinson, Kirsopp Lake, Gerhard Kittel, Edgar Goodspeed, James Moffatt, Kenneth Clark, Ernest Colwell, Gunther Zuntz, J.B. Phillips, William Barclay, Theodore Skeat, George Kilpatrick, F.F. Bruce, George Ladd, J.K. Elliott, Eldon Epp, Brevard Childs, Bart Ehrman, C.H. Dodd, Barclay Newman, Arthur Voobus, Eugene Nida, Jan de Waard, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, Allen Wikgren, Bruce Metzger, and Johannes Karavidopoulos;

ROMAN CATHOLICS: Richard Simon, Alexander Geddes, Alberto Ablondi, Johann Hug, and Carlo Martini.

“When the constitution of the British and Foreign Bible Society was first formulated, it was understandably not foreseen that the question of Unitarianism would have much relevance to the society’s work. Before long, however, UNITARIANS GAINED SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE UPON THE AFFAIRS OF THE BIBLE SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE, WHERE SOME AUXILIARY SOCIETIES WERE RUN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY PERSONS OF UNITARIAN BELIEFS” (Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations, p. 12).

The standard line from modernists is that “no doctrine is affected, and the total changes add to less than one page of the Bible.”

the differences affect seven percent of the New Testament. “The fact of the matter is that the Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR, mostly by deletions, in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000).

KJV Only


When I say I am KJV only, what does that mean? I’ve come to discover that other people have incorrect pre-conceived notions about the meaning of what that is. And I’ve discovered that Ruckman-ites and Riplinger-ites have coined a phrase for me and others with my beliefs – “Textus Receptus Only.”

Let me state it a different way. Textus Receptus only means King James Only since the King James version is the only translation that comes solely from the Textus Receptus, the New Testament in Greek.

To believe like Peter Ruckman is to be a Ruckman-ite. To believe in Gail Riplinger is to be a Riplinger-ite. Please don’t hijack the title claimed by Dean Burgon, the Dean Burgon society, and countless thousands of others who by conviction are King James Only, but fail to believe in cultish, bizarre unScriptural notions such as “Second Inspiration” and “King James above the Original Texts”.

Do I believe that you cannot be saved reading an NIV? No. There’s a sufficient amount of the truth and power of God’s word in the NIV to save someone. It greatly weakens the overall message, and can attempt to mislead one from following true biblical doctrine. But yes, I believe someone can be saved reading the NIV. I was reading an NIV at the time I was saved. And I think anyone who hears my testimony of that night will agree I was completely and thoroughly saved. I was still reading the NIV at the time that I became, by conviction, KJV only. I also had an NASB and an RSV.

King James Only means that by conviction, I will use the King James Bible to read from, study from and preach from. It means I am convinced it is the complete Bible, the inspired word of God. It represents the best English translation from true copies of the Bible as it was passed down to us from the Apostles.

It means (to most KJVO Believers) that the Modern Bibles are based upon a fraudulent attempt to reconcile two manuscripts that disagree with one another in over 10,000 places, and which have been edited in every verse by two, three and as many as twenty other hands, verses erased, words changed, notes added in margins… If most Christians ever read the writings of Tischendorf about the Textus Sinaiticus, they would put away their other bibles.

It means that we reject the work of Wescott & Hort because they had an agenda, they were unsaved men, and that they deliberately compiled the verses that best represented their particular doctrinal stands, whenever there was a choice.

It means we reject Nestle-Alland for the same reason, as their manuscripts are almost letter for letter identical to Wescott-Hort.

I think that translations such as the NASB was best described by Kent Hovind with the phrase, “A good translation of the wrong manuscripts“.

Which translation is better, the NASB or the King James? Well, since only one comes from the received text, which came to us from the churches separate from Rome from the times of the Apostles until now… it’s a moot question. Were the NASB to be translated afresh from the Textus Receptus, it would be a different story!

And then… it won’t be as precise as the KJV. Here’s an example:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7 KJV)

Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (NASB)

The second “you” in the verse… is that singular, meaning Nicodemus? or is it plural, meaning “everyone?”

In the modern “Precise, accurate” language of the NASB, it is vague. It could be either. In the “antiquated” language of the King James, it is precise…. It means “Everyone”.

“Y” words… plural. You, yours, ye. “T” words… singular. Thee, Thou, Thine. In the KJV, It’s specific… I tell thee (Nicodemus) Ye (everyone) must be born again. It reflects the difference between σοι and υμας in the Greek.

The King James Bible issue explained (for people who don’t know)


King James BibleIn light of Phil Stringer’s speech to the King James organizations last year (which I finally just listened to!) I thought I’d explain the whole King James issue.

One person who reads my blog wrote on their own blog, “I don’t mind the King James issue, but I hate the people who defend it.” And to a certain extent, I can’t blame them for thinking this way. Presumably that means me as well, but hey… a lot of us do deserve the comments. I’ll explain.

For starters, no one person speaks for the King James only movement. There’s a lot of people who speak for the issue. And there’s several that most of us frankly wish, would shut up.

I don’t own any writings, ebooks or audio recordings by Gail Riplinger. She’s written some things that I’ve seen quoted that I agree with… and she’s written many things that I do not agree with.

She’s said many mean-spirited things… and honestly, some wild-eyed things that make us KJV defenders all look like idiots. I own – and use – a Strong’s concordance. From what I’ve seen quoted in it, the “Toxic” book sounds like, well, lunacy. She’s done a poor job of research, and makes the same mistake a lot of evangelical Christians do as well.

Briefly, if I get a book published by Tyndale, I’d probably be bouncing like an idiot. “I got published! Yes!!!” I’d send my manuscript off, check my proofs carefully, and very possibly, if the editor was feeling generous, I might even get to okay the book cover.

It does not mean I’m having any secret meetings with any of the other Tyndale publishers. Let’s just hypothesize that James White also landed a publishing deal with Tyndale. It doesn’t mean we’re getting together and having coffee. It also doesn’t mean he and I are plotting to edit (HORRORS!) or destroy the King James Bible.

Gail Riplinger does make those kinds of leaps of logic. But so do a lot of evangelical Christians I’ve seen books by. Many of the people who investigate the Illuminati, new world order, etc make those very same leaps of logic. I guess it’s okay for Texe Marrs to do it, but not a King James only person?

Let me briefly distance myself from another King James defender I wish would shut up. Or at least tone it down. Peter Ruckman. The man’s a cult leader. He makes some very strange statements, is very bigoted, and no doubt would dismiss me as a “jackass” and a “kike”. Yes, he does talk like that. My seminary president visited his church once, and testified that yes, Ruckman says the “N” word from the pulpit. Racism really is not helping the cause of the King James Bible any.

Those kind of people really do the King James world a disservice. NO, I don’t stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting, “You’re going to hell! You’re going to Hell!” Peter S. Ruckman’s church does that, from what Marc Monte says.

Okay, there you go. I know I’m rough. I know I speak very strongly. But then again, I’ve read the Bible a lot, and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and many others did so as well. I get so absolutely fed up with people – heretics, really – question the bible, deny the Bible, make up their own doctrine, and steer my Christian brethren on a sleepwalking road back to Rome. So, I tend to speak very harshly about such people.

So, let me explain the King James issue. I know you’re not James White. I know you’re not Ron Rhodes. I know you’re not John Ankerberg. These people all speak against the King James issue, and in reality,most of the people who speak against the King James Issue have never studied it.

When you see us slam the opponents of the King James issue, pause and consider this – we’re defending our beliefs. And many of the people that oppose us often have agendas. And many of them hold to secret heresies they won’t admit to. That’s very often the people we’re mentally imagining when we write these articles.

The first thing you should be aware of is… who is on these Bible translating committees? Check these people out. Read about the names of these people. Oh, wow… hey, James White is on the translating committee of some modern translations – that means financially he’s got a stake in attacking the ing James Only movement!

What about Virginia Mollenkot? What are her beliefs about Bible inerrancy, God, the inspiration and preservation of Scripture?

What about Cardinal Carlo Martini? The Jesuit? What agenda does he have?

What about some of these other names? Kurt Aland. Matthew Black, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren? what do these people believe? What are their statements of faith? Should these people be deciding how to translate the Greek texts into English? Some words such as Uranos can mean heaven or sky. Do you want someone who does not believe in heaven translating your Bible?

Let me ask a question – and again, I understand that many of you have simply never been educated in the Bible issue.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Timothy 4:1 (KJV)

Okay, we all understand, agree, and are aware the Bible says that in the last times heretics will arise.

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 2 Peter 2:1-3 (KJV)

Even the most trusting evangelical Christian begins to suspect this may not be a person in the congregation, but also pastors as well.

If Satan was going to weaken Christians and lead them astray, where’s the best places to get his tools? His wolves? In the pulpits.

And translating your Bibles

Are you aware that Kurt Aland, of the Nestle’-Aland Greek Texts, is a heretic? He does not even accept that the 66 books we have in our Bible belong there. And he’s open to other books being put in, and probably even some of ours being taken out. There’s quotes from Aland about that very subject. Read them.

And keep in mind, he’s the man responsible for the Greek texts used by the Bible societies.

Scared yet? You should be.

Because the truth is that all the modern texts come from codex sinaiticus – a Greek text that a known manuscript forger confessed to forging over 100 years ago… – and from a copy of Codex Vaticanus. Not the original, but a copy. Vaticanus is exhibited at the Vatican library, but if it looks like you’re reading it or translating it, it’s yanked away and placed back in the back rooms.

Neither of these books are complete. Sinaiticus has several apocryphal texts and pseudopigraphal texts in it. Does that mean we should be accepting these books as canon?

Sinaiticus is written in the wrong Greek, Attic Greek, not in Koine greek – this places it either in the wrong era (100 BC) or… as a clumsy forgery. And remember, Constantinus Simonides (a known Bible and manuscript forger) had already admitted to forging it early in his career. Even he admitted it was a clumsy forgery!

Here’s the issue. Vaticanus does not have some books. Sinaiticus does not have some books. They disagree with each other in tens of thousands of places.
If I were to translate the New Testament from these texts, I’d have years of heartache about it, trying to decide which of the texts are correct. Do I choose the verse that is missing half the words, or do I choose the one that has left out some words? One verse is missing in one text the name of God, the other is missing the name of Christ. Almost every reference to fasting is removed from one of the manuscripts.

And both of them disagree GREATLY with over 5200 other Greek Texts, that all the Christian churches had been using since the times of the Apostles.

Now, those 5200 agree. There’s some minor copying errors between them, and a few misspelled words – but aside from that, they all agree. You can go from one to the other of those 5,200 manuscripts and find that they all pretty much say exactly the same thing word for word.

So, which would you choose? The copy of Vaticanus and the possibly forged, incomplete Greek text that disagrees with Vaticanus in 10,000 places? Or the 5,200 other manuscripts?

You and I would find this one a no-brainer. Go with 2 flawed manuscripts, or go with the 5,200 ones that agree? I think we’d all turn to the really big pile. The work would actually go faster. You don’t have to decide which version to go with! You just simply read them, and when you come to a repeated word or a space that looks like a word was misspelled or left out, you consult another. You could do it with three or four manuscripts.

Or, you could use one of the manuscripts that’s already been compiled by men who’ve done just that! The compilation often bears the same name as the same family of texts, the Textus-Receptus.

But what do Nestle and Aland choose? Or Wescott and Hort? What did they ALL choose for the modern translations? Why, the forged manuscript and the copy provided by the Vatican.

Huh. The… very choice you’d expect men who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration, preservation and canon of the Bible to make.

It’s the only conclusion I can come to. The protests of James White and John Ankerberg cannot sweep away that fact. They’re choosing texts that are flawed, incomplete, and possibly forged.

By an amazing coincidence, these Greek texts neglect almost every reference to fasting. They omit many references to the Blood of Jesus Christ. There’s a few Charismatics who follow this blog. They’d be shocked to find that out!

And many of the verses deliberately change many of the verses that affirm the deity of Christ. Would you trust the manuscripts that affirm many times that Jesus Christ is God, that ye must be born again, that Christ rose from the dead? Or do you want the ones that omit these references?

this is the King james only issue. This is the issue at hand. And Christians who love the Bible, once they become aware of it and begin looking up the translations of various verses, all become convinced of the issue. And they get fighting mad!

I’m furious we have allowed men like Bruce Metzger who denies openly the deity of Jesus Christ and calls Genesis “a fable” to translate our Bibles. We allow Unitarians to suggest wordings they can live with. After all , the thought of Hell makes Unitarians uncomfortable! If they deny the existence of Hell, and give it names like “tartarus” “gehenna” and “hades”, they can sleep a little easier at night.

Because they deny that Jesus Christ is God. And if you believe that, you are not saved. And if you’re not saved, where will you go when you die?

If you’d like, I can list verse after verse after verse that will scare you and will make you put away your other Bibles. And even get you to the point that you will start calling the Modern Bible Versions… well, you’ll start adding the prefix “per” to “version.”

I’m betting that if you can stay a follower of my often-too blunt blog for more than a week, you must be a committed Christian with a love for Christ and His Bible. And if that’s the case, you need to look into this issue. Because a lot is at stake.

5 Quotes on the Inspiration of the Bible


If the words of the Lord are pure words, refined silver, tried seven times, and the Holy Spirit has, with all care, dictated them accurately, it was on this account the Saviour said that not one jot or tittle of them should pass away.” — Clement of Alexandria, quoted by L. W. Munhall, “Inspiration,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “Chapter 2. Inspiration”.

“The immediate results of [textual] criticism are in a high degree disturbing. So fat they have scarcely been understood by the average Christian. But the plain man who has been used to receive everything in the Bible as a veritable Word of God cannot fail to be perplexed, and deeply perplexed, when he is told that much of the Old Testament and the New is unhistorical, and when he is asked to accept the statement that God reveals Himself by myth and legend as well as by the truth, of fact. Mr. Balfour must surely know that many of the higher critics have ceased to be believers. More than twenty years ago the present writer, walking with Julius Wellhausen in the quaint streets of Greifswald, ventured to ask him whether, if his views were accepted, the Bible could retain its place in the estimation of the common people. `I cannot see how that is possible,’ was the sad reply.” W. H. Griffith Thomas, “Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “Chapter 7. Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity”.

The theory that inspiration may be affirmed only of the main views or positions of Scripture, but neither of the words nor of the development of the thoughts, cannot, it seems clear, be harmonized with the Lord’s teaching. William Caven, “The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “Chapter 10. The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament”.

Dean Burgon, a man of vast learning, 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.” L. W. Munhall, “Inspiration,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “Chapter 2. Inspiration”.

The inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures is clearly implied in the many declarations of our Lord respecting the fulfilment of prophecies contained in them. It is God’s prerogative to know, and to make known, the future. Human presage cannot go beyond what is foreshadowed in events which have transpired, or is wrapped up in causes which we plainly see in operation. If, therefore, the Old Testament reveals, hundreds of years in advance, what is coming to pass, omniscience must have directed the pen of the writer; i.e., these Scriptures, or at least their predictive parts, must be inspired. William Caven, “The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament,” in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, ed. R. A. Torrey and A. C. Dixon, (Los Angeles: Bible Institute of Los Angeles, 1917), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: “Chapter 10. The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament”.

These five quotes all speak to something that many teaxhers deny today, yet as you can see, ONE CENTURY AGO was accepted almost universally.

The Bible is inspired (θεόπνευστος Theo Nuptis, God Breathed), not in the ways that some emotionally pleasing art or writing is called “inspired”, but written by God.
The Bible is Inerrant, utterly without mistake, or error, or need of correction.
The Bible is preserved – no verse was lost, no original manuscript exists to offer correction, for NONE IS NEEDED.