Issues with the Faithlife Company


I’m going to take the time to discuss my wife’s conclusion about Logos, that it is not a Christian company. I do have to agree with her. It’s a business. The prices they charge, and the tactics they use to force people to constantly give them money may be sound business practice, but it’s not Christian principles. Christian principles is that the laborer is worthy of his hire, and to pay your people fairly, and charge an honest price for your software. Bibleworks was an honest contender until I found out that they really didn’t give you much in the way of Bible dictionaries, grammars, etc. At least with that software, you pay one price… and you get everything.

But let’s not forget Logos was started by a Christian employee of Microsoft, who went on his own. He turned it into a major software business, eventually creating the greatest Bible software package.

And then recently, he began offering packages for cults and unSaved people, as if lending legitimacy to them. You can buy Verbum, for Roman Catholics. He must have hired some Roman Catholics for the Content teams, because now you get Roman Catholic materials in almost every base package of Logos. What, pray tell, am I going to do with the Roman Catholic lectionary, or the Confessions of “St.” Augustine? The Standard Silver package has a devotional to Mary!!! Are they offering Baptist materials in Verbum, I wonder? Hmmm… let’s see… no.

So, sadly, Logos will probably after the Rapture be instrumental in building a one world religion. I’m not saying that Christians do not work at Logos. I am not saying that there’s something wrong with the software, or the materials they offer (except the RCC stuff). But if you’ve learned to spot agendas (something I taught my readers to do two years ago) – these facts should be setting off alarm bells.

Advertisements

IFB Blogs


Out of all the IFB blogs there were out there, a number of them – most of them – are gone.

I think it’s just battle fatigue. When you start a IFB, Narrow is the way, King James only blog, you immediately are beset on all sides from apostates and heretics who want to argue with you. And precious few people come on and say, “That article was great!”

no, they want to argue.

It takes a toll on you.

There were some that started a year ago, when I was writing articles on how to start one. They’re gone now.

It’s really tough. And you, after a few months, struggle through the feeling you’re fighting this alone.

You’re not, but boy, it really feels that way.

Oddly enough, the most common challenges I was getting was from Roman Catholic apologists, most of whom are apostate Protestants. So this last year, i did something I needed to do, and took a month off. And I threw up my entire Roman Catholic apologetics series again, after a Roman Catholic apologist demanded that “just ONCE I’d like to see a protestant answer these questions!”

So, I’m not a protestant – I’m a Baptist – but I obliged him. He made no comment at all, because the very first thing in that series I challenge is the Magisterium.

So, if you’re one of the few left with IFB blogs, when it gets tough, consider taking a month off. It helps. Then back into the battle.

If you’re debating whether you should start one… yes. Go back through my archives to find the blog articles on starting an apologetics blog.

King James Only-ism – invented by Seventh Day Adventist?


One of the usual attacks on King James only proponents is that it was invented by a Seventh Day Adventist.

There is an implication in that statement that Seventh Day Adventism is wrong – and yet most modern translation proponents have absolutely no problem calling the SDA Christians, when they should be dismissing them as a cult! To point out all the constant hypocrisy of the modern version proponents would require a full time job!

Yes, Benjamin Wilkerson did write a book advocating the King James Bible in 1930. So, let’s look at a quick timeline of KJV defenders, and see if it was really started by Wilkerson!

1819 John Henry Todd published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible.

1829 – John Jebb defends the KJV

1843 John Dowling published a defense of the KJV in “The Burning of the Bibles, Defence of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures Against the Attacks of Popish Apologists for the Champlain Bible Burners (Philadelphia: Nathan Moore, 1843)

1850 John Dowling published The Old-Fashioned Bible, or Ten Reasons against the Proposed Baptist Version of the New Testament (New York: Edward H. Fletcher, 1850)

1883 Dean John Burgon publishes The Revision Revised

1904 The Trinitarian Bible Society begins publishing articles protesting the Critical Greek Text of Wescott Hort.

1924-25 William Aberhard publishes The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What about the Revised Version of the Bible

1924 Philip Mauro publishes Which Version? Authorized or Revised?

1930 – Benjamin Wilkerson publishes his book

Hm.

So, apparently Wilkerson was just following in several others’ footsteps!

so much for that slander.

Soul Sleep Part 2


I assumed I was done with soul sleep when I finished my article on the SDA.

Incidentally, Nobody who was SDA ever challenged the first point of my articles. As a matter of fact, they recieved zero challenges.

Until a gentleman who is SDA tried emailing me, and made his first point, and doggeldly refused to give ground despite my citing several passages of Scripture, and asking him point blank 3 times if he was SDA. He simply kept repeating point one. I should put his email exchange online, with his name and email address redacted, because they’re such a classic case of someone in a cult repeating their pet doctrine ad nauseum when you defeat their argument right out of the gate.

I kind of feel like that now. I’ve met TWO Christians who believe in soul sleep. I gave the first one 2 Cor 5 as I described it yesterday. That christian simply repeated herself. Okay, I can see that you chose your doctrines, and you’re not going to let inconvenient things like, I don’t know, Scripture change your mind.

The second one actually had scriptural reasons why she believed in soul sleep – except it was 2 Cor. 5! She moved the “Rather” into the second half of the verse, and triumphantly pointed out Paul was saying “I would RATHER be with the Lord, but I can’t, because we sleep!”

I immediately asked, “you checked this against Luke 16?”

Two weeks later she simply repeated the argument, and said she hadn’t read anything in the Bible to change her mind.

So, the answer to that would be – no, she never checked it against Luke 16.

This is the problem we run into while contending for the faith. Sometimes, we have to answer other Christians who’ve fallen for the doctrines of devils. You can’t answer a Christian the same way you’d answer a Mormon or Roman Catholic apologist. A fellow Christian is someone who you answer more gently. I was listening to a sermon yesterday in which a missiionary to cults was explaining how to answer mormons (because I’m still not happy with my exchanges with the Mormons!), in which it was pointed out there are two kinds of Mormons – those who fon’t know they’re in a cult, and those who do know and continue anyway.

It’s like Messianics – those who don’t know they’re in a cult, and those that do, but continue anyway.

So, let’s look at other verses that answer soul sleep.

SDA and other soul sleep believers will sometimes break one of the cardinal rules of bible interpretation by citing Ecclesiastes.

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Ecclesiastes 9:5 (KJV)

We have to be wary when citing Ecclesiastes, which is a book of fleshly wisdom. It’s like quoting from Job, where 3/4’s of the doctrines espoused there are in error, and God finally answers with His wisdom.

The answer to that is the very next verse!

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Ecclesiastes 9:5-7 (KJV)

The understanding of Ecclesiastes, as in a couple of the psalms, contrasts living, where one has your only chances to earn rewards for heaven, and the state of the physical body after death.

AS for the soul… let’s look at Ecclesiastes!

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Ecclesiastes 12:7 (KJV)

Oh! So, the soul goes back to… God!

One pf the points that was raised was that none have ascended save the Son of Man – Jesus. None have seen the Father except Jesus.

So the soul sleep in the grave. That’s why we have the Rapture, so the Lord can wake the dead!

That’s a completely erroneous conclusion based upon – I have to say it – tunnel vision and isogesis. Does the speaker forget that Paul arose and went to heaven – whether in the body or not he could not say???

18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. 19 Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. 20 He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death. Psalm 68:18-20 (KJV)

This one was forgotten about.

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) Ephesians 4:8-10 (KJV)

This teaches the understanding that before the death of Christ, the dead were in two places – Paradise (Abraham’s bosom) and Hell. Both were deep in the earth, and both were apparently right next to each other. The dead could see one another, talk to one another. But Luke 16 reveals there was a great gulf fixed between the dead, and Abraham and Lazarus were unable to cross and rescue the rich man, who was in torments.

Ephesians 4 and Psalm 68 teach us that Jesus Christ, after He died, went into Abraham’s Bosom, and took those awaiting, and “Ascended on high”, bringing them to heaven. No man HAD seen the Father but the son, and no man had ascended save the Son – but that ended in AD 30. Now, instead of journeying DOWN when a believer dies, we ascend into Heaven.

And Ephesians also speaks of the rewards. That’s great if you get gifts and rewards while you’re unaware of them and sleeping in the grave! Clearly, we are to be awake and aware to receive them.

Paul said, “to be absent from the body is to be Present with THE LORD”. This means you are in the Lord’s presence!

20 And he cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? 21 And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child’s soul come into him again. 22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. 1 Kings 17:20-22 (KJV)

29 And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, Genesis 49:29 (KJV) 10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. Judges 2:10 (KJV) 20 Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again. 2 Kings 22:20 (KJV) 28 Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same. So they brought the king word again. 2 Chronicles 34:28 (KJV)

If death is a sleep, then this creates problems. Lazarus came forth, the child;s soul came into him again, the righteous are gathered unto their fathers.

Sounds like a journey. You have to be aware to be in a journey. Otherwise – you’re aware of nothing. you know nothing. The Bible would refer to this as “thou shalt sleep and awaken on the last day.”

If the Bible describes death as a journey, we should as well. Jacob and the other Old Testament saints describe being “gathered unto their fathers”. This means their fathers will be aware – and they will be as well! – that they are together. A journey, unto my fathers, willl be with me, I will go to him…. The Bible uses this language. “Bury me next to my wife” means one thing, but “was gathered unto his fathers” says something completely different! They are together, meaning they are aware of each other.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:5-7 (KJV)

The final point is, there is a great number of people present in heaven throughout Revelation. A great number. And they are all aware.

the very presence of them in Heaven contradicts soul sleep. the very fact they cast their crowns on the glassy sea, and cry out praises to God, and even beseech God for vengeance on those who killed them! – all speak to the dead being aware.

We derive our doctrines from the Bible. We read them, compare them diligently against each other. WE derive no doctrine from unclear verses, but rather, from clear verses first, and unlcear verses then shed additional light. But when we read many, many verses describing the dead being aware, and four or five unclear verses – we go by the more clear and obvious verses first.

So why the unclear verses?

They shed additional light. The very verses that the cults misunderstand help us to differentiate between breathing and soul, between the state of the flesh and the state of the soul.

Read your Bible. Study your Bible. Take it literally. Compare scripture with scripture. Clear verses are taken first, and unclear second.

A good warning sign is this – if al of Christianity reads their Bible and says “a” and you read it and it says “B” – be careful. Start studying. Compare. Let the Bible choose your doctrine, and not the other way around.

Soul Sleep Refuted


I thought I’d deal with this one again, since this one keeps popping up.

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 2 Corinthians 5:6 (KJV)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)

Now, I’ve got to deal with 2 Corinthians 5:8 word by word, as I actually had someone cite this verse to PROVE soul sleep, which absolutely dumbfounded me as the worst case whatsoever of Biblical Isogesis I have truly ever seen.

The first thing we do is… read the verses.

Okay, verse 6 says if we are absent from the Lord we are present in the body. You can’t be in Heaven and on earth at the same time unless you’re Jesus Christ.

Looking at verse 8, it seems to contrast verse 6, unless I’m really missing something.

To be absent from the Lord is to be present with the body. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

That’s what I’m getting, aren’t you?

Well, not soul Sleep advocates.

THey see this as Paul saying, “i would rather be present with the Lord, but it’s impossible, so I won’t.”

Okay, it’s time to open our Textus Receptus now! Going to Accordance, I looked this up. Here it is.

θαρροῦμεν δέ, καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον.

“Uh, I don’t read Greek. What’s it say?”

You do know I’m teaching Greek, right? If you’d started in December, you’d be up to snuff by now!

Anyway, here it is parsed. Parsing, in this case, really robs us of our major tools, which is tense-voice-mood. But I’ll get back to that.

We are confident G2292 θαῤῥέω tharrheo

I say and G1161 δέ de

– G2532 καί kai

willing G2106 εὐδοκέω eudokeo

rather G3123 μᾶλλον mallon

to be absent G1553 ἐκδημέω ekdemeo

from G1537 ἐκ, ἐξ ek, ex

the body G4983 σῶμα soma

and G2532 καί kai

to be present G1736 ἐνδημέω endemeo

with G4314 πρός pros

the Lord G2962 κύριος kurios

Ready? Here’s the analyzsis. And.. if you were reading in in context in the English, you’d have gotten all this!

Confident and Willing are linked by Greek tense. θαρροῦμεν δέ, καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν oumen and oumen. They are linked by Greek tense, which we see in the suffix.

ἐκδημῆσαι and ἐνδημῆσαι are linked by tense. Absent and present.

Paul cannot be saying, “I would rather be present, but I can’t.” The construction of this is contrasting – just like in the English – absent and present, τοῦ σώματος and τὸν Κύριον, from the body and with the Lord.

Here’s what it would boil down to – exactly what is written in the King James Bible. To be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord. While Paul is with the Corinthians, he is not physically with Jesus Christ, which is where he’d rather be. I get that from reading verse 6. Anyone disagree so far?

Paul then shows, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that he is willing and confident to be absent from the body amd present with the LOrd.

Next we turn to punctuation. The verse is split in two by two marked thoughts. The thought process is shown by the very punctuation of the King James.

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Corinthians 5:8 (KJV)

the word rather is in the first half of the sentnence. If the Bible had meant to say “I would rather be with the Lord”…

…then the verse would say that. The word “rather” would be in the second half of the verse and connected to “present”, and not connected to “absent”.

To say this is to separate 5:8 from 5:6, and the apparent contrast and the entire context.

16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 (KJV)

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 2 Corinthians 5:1-11 (KJV)

The entire context of the verse (rule 1, read the Bible and accept what it says, rule 2, read in context, rule 3 compare spiritual things with spiritual) is that if we die, we have a place prepared for us (verse 1). We cannot wait to be there, because when we are there we will be clothed in immortality and glory (verses 2-4). We have been given the down paymentof the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of eternal life (verse 5). While we are at home in the body, we are absent from the LOrd – but we walk by faith in eternal life, not by any demonstrateable proof. Thus we have confidence and are willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. (verse 8) Thus, we labor whether in the body or not to be accepted of the Lord.

WAIT!

Verse 9 of itself crushes the soul sleep argument. 9 “Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.”

How can you labor while you are absent (dead) if you are UNAWARE IN THE GRAVE?

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:19-31 (KJV)

The entire soul sleep argument is put aside once and for all reading Luke 16.

Lazarus and the rich man are dead. Abraham is dead.

This is not a parable, even though every commentary seems to call it that. David Cloud points out that Abraham’s name and Lazarus’s name are mentioned. The only name not mentioned is the rich man.

Names are never mentioned in parables. Luke 16 is a real account.

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. Some claim the story in Lk. 16:19-31 about the rich man in Hell is a parable. This is usually claimed by those who deny that Hell is a place of eternal torment, or by those who believe in Soul Sleep. The Seventh-day Adventists are an example of this. They claim that the fire and other descriptions of Hell are not real. We know that this was not a parable for the following reasons: (1) Christ used the proper names of two people, Lazarus and Abraham, and this He never did with parables. (2) The description of Hell in this passage corresponds with Christ’s descriptions of Hell in other passages (Mk. 9:44,46,48). (3) There is no indication that this is a parable. It is not called a parable and does not have any of the key expressions associated with true parables (such as “like,” “as,” “like unto,” or “likened unto.” (David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia)

 

39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:39-43 (KJV)

If the soul sleeps until the Rapture… how then was the thief on the cross with Jesus Christ in Paradise?

The Bible teaching on this is plain. Upon death (the separation of the body from the spirit)… we go to Heaven… or Hell.

We are aware. The souls in Heaven rejoice and praise God.

9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:9-11 (KJV)

Those in Hell raise their eyes, crying out in torment and agony.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:10 (KJV)

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luke 16:24 (KJV)

Soul Sleep is not Biblical.

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).

If you believe that it doesn’t matter what Bible you read… stay tuned. I’m going to discuss this at length soon.

Augustine: Jesus did what we cannot do


Jesus did what we cannot do – Sermonaudio

It’s a great sentiment. I agree with it.

But the article starts out quoting a Roman Catholic… and then another.

Agendas.

Ecumenism in action.

Evangelicals define Ecumenism as “All the Church coming together in Christ.”

It’s great, but it’s a misuse of the phrase “church”, in  assuming a universal, invisible body. The Biblical term for that is “Kingdom of God”.

And who came up with the concept of a universal, invisible “Church”?

Augustine. The Roman Catholics.

This is an agenda. They give you a Biblical truth, but then quote Roman Catholics. It’s to get you to first think of them as Christian (which they are not) and then…

….to eventually be reprogrammed and …convert to Roman Catholicism.

Learn to look for agendas. Learn to recognize them.