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.

Advertisements

Neo-Barthianism


Neo Barthianism

Karl Barth

To Karl Barth, once a liberal himself, that was misplaced optimism in man’s essential nature. Man, he said, was a sinner, desperately in need of God’s help in bridging the gap between himself as a sinful creature and the transcendent Lord and Creator. This God did in Christ. To Barth, Jesus in the strict sense is the only valid revelation. Barth was so narrow in this that he defined other mighty acts for man’s salvation, like the virgin birth, even the resurrection of Christ, as signs of revelation, but not revelation in themselves. So also the Bible! It was merely a written record or witness to the revelation itself, and, therefore, must not be identified as revelation. For Barth the Bible was merely a record where we confront the human attempts to repeat and reproduce God’s mighty acts by recounting them in human words and thoughts, according to human situations. It was misdirected honor to call the Bible revelation. Emil Brunner agreed, stating that revelation cannot be either book or doctrine, but only God himself. Thus revelation is something that really goes on in man, illumination within the questing heart; it is the “Word of God,” specifically Christ, coming directly to the heart of man (so Barth); the “personal encounter” (so Brunner); the “I-thou relationship” (so Friedrich Gogarten 1887–1967); the “kerygma” which leads to self-realization and authentic existence (so Rudolf Bultmann 1884–1976); the “word event,” or faith of Jesus rather than in Jesus (so Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs). In each case there is rejection of the Bible, or its propositional truths, or its doctrines as revelation, and a corresponding elevating of the personal encounter of the believer with God as the only genuine revelation or revelatory happening prompted by God. This also implied that there could be no revelation where it is not received or where man fails to encounter God.

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Revelation,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1846.

Of all those men quoted above, almost all of them were Christ deniers and theological liberals.

If you read that and didn’t skip over it, you’ll see that Barth denied the Bible, but affirmed Jesus.

I’m sorry, that’s just not going to fly. Jesus Christ affirmed the Bible. If you deny the Bible and affirm Jesus, you’re affirming… a different Jesus.
Why did Barth decide that the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of Christ were not acts of salvation? Why then did he disregard them?
Because – he didn’t believe in them.

Karl Barth (1886–1968), though one of the most influential theologians in recent history, held a defective and dangerous view of inspiration, a view many continue to propagate. Barthians generally align themselves with the liberal school of biblical criticism. Yet they often preach like evangelicals. This makes Barthianism more dangerous than blatant liberalism.

Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 85.

I do not wish to leave you with the impression that it is my view that if we only understood Barth better, we would find that he was an evangelical. He was not—not in the American sense of that term, at least.

Vincent Bacote, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 73.

The bottom line about Barth is this – he rejected the Bible and embraced a Jesus separated from the Bible. In his circle of “The word of God” he included men. The Resurrection of the Dead he attributed to “man’s involvement with Christ.”

In other words, he thought that men resurrected themselves by being plugged into Jesus somehow, like an electric outlet providing power to a lamp.

Why is this an issue? Why am I even bothering with this? Karl Barth died many years ago. If he was unsaved – and I’m making a good case for it – then why bother? He’s gone on to his judgment!

Because – most people who think they are Christians are Barthians. They believe the same things.

If he wasn’t saved… what about them?

What do you believe?

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.

3 ways Evangelicals misrepresent Fundamentalists


Fundamentalism is often presented with negative connotations.And it’s deliberate, otherwise the Theological Liberals wouldn’t be able to get and keep lucrative jobs fleecing the sheep,
Fundamentalism is portrayed with the following words: Judgmental, Pharisee, angry, harsh, unloving, strict, narrow-minded, unintelligent. Apparently, it never seemed to matter to the Theological Liberals who have successfully misrepresented Fundamentalism in this manner that all of these keywords apply just as equally to them.

Why Do Evangelicals Portray Fundamentalists so negatively?

It’s a valid question, and I’ll spend only a few sentences on this, to try to avoid the 2013 style blog posts I did with 6,500 words a day!

Reason 1: We brought it on ourselves. Frank Norris pulling a gun on another Pastor kind of gave us a black eye we still haven’t recovered from – and this happened almost a century ago! Certainly, Fundamentalists have not been the most joyful and loving bunch. I’ve written in the past that the one area that Fundamentalists end up light is the “Love One Another” area. Since Christ claimed this was the second greatest commandment, we need to enact action plans in our daily lives to start working on this! And we’re far too quick to point out error in Christianity (by the way, this is a Biblically mandated action we are to take on false teachers and those whose doctrine is misaligned – Rom. 16:17-18) – but very often we don’t bother trying to post articles explaining how to get your doctrine right! In case you missed it in David Cloud’s articles, he usually does post HOW to fix erroneous theology and doctrines shortly after pointing out error! If we all adopted this on our blogs, then we’d begin to reach people, and show people the errors in their beliefs without driving them away – maybe.
Reason 2: If Theological Liberals don’t misrepresent Fundamentalists, EVERYONE would be one, and they’d be out of a job! No kidding, I’m placing this as the first real reason of why they do it. And I can prove my point. A brief, one on one talk with any Christian can convince them to escape Evangelicalism and become Fundamentalist. I could sit down with you at McDonald’s and by the time we’re done with lunch, I can talk you into being a Fundamentalist. HALF of my talk is usually correcting these misrepresentations that Liberals give. Once I correct those, and give a 60 second explanation that a fundamentalist is a Christian who believes the Bible literally and tries to conform their life to it, the person I’m talking to is both done with their french fries and committed to being a Fundamentalist themselves!
Theological liberals do not believe the Bible, because they are not saved. You can’t be saved and believe the things they believe. But if they convince you that Fundamentalism is bad, that leaves compromising Evangelicalism with its “Don’t Judge Heresy” platform, and now they can maintain lucrative teaching positions that allow them speaking fees, tenure, sabbaticals and plush perks. It’s been a long-standing joke among Christians that upon graduating Seminary, your first witnessing assignment is to get your professor saved! They have EVERYTHING to lose by allowing you to stand firm for the word of God!

Reason 3: Money. There’s a lot of money to be made from Christians – this is why there’s so MANY televangelists – but also theologians! Think about it – you hit a difficult passage in the Bible, and what do you do? You… buy a book! There’s books on Christian families, marriages, Bible reading (avoid most of these, please!), Angels, heavenly encounters with Jesus Christ (these never happened, and you should throw the books away if you bought them), trips into Hell by Christians (again, same thing), Christian poetry primers, etc. Every time you buy a book, a Christian book publishing company makes money, and a Theological Liberal just got paid by Christians for denying Christ! Now, here’s something they can try writing a book about: 50 Reasons the Bible is without error. If you’re a Christian author and can’t write a book like that – you’re not saved! And I guarantee Christians would line up to buy those books at the book store! (hmmm… rubs chin, thinking…) This is why David Cloud teaches that the most dangerous place for a Christian is often Christian book stores!
Reason 4: If Theological Liberals mock and belittle Fundamentalists, it helps them sleep at night. No kidding, they make their living in a Bible they don’t believe. And the Bible has only one message for an unsaved person: If you don’t get saved, you will burn in Hell forever. They refuse to get saved, so this haunts them. If they belittle Fundamentalists, then it helps them to get past this terrible fear, which can be crippling once you know the truth. You can squash it down most of the time, but it rears its head constantly. This is a prime mechanism to deal with this fear, to mock those who’ve obeyed the call and gotten saved.

What should you do about it?

Chances are, you already have by coming here… The only way to deal with these people is stop reading them, stop listening to them. If a Teacher, no matter how famous and beloved a Christian teacher they may be, belittles, mocks or misrepresents a viewpoint of believing the Bible literally, then throw away their books, delete their MP3’s, and have nothing to do with them!

Those Fundamentalist Pharisees by David Cloud


Updated September 24 2014 (first published August 2, 1996)(David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

Christians who have strong biblical convictions are often labeled “Pharisees.”

The following are a few examples of the probably hundreds of times people have written to called me a Pharisee.

“I wonder what makes Mr. Cloud so sure he’s right and everybody else is wrong? Look at the Pharisees, Mr. Cloud, and then look in the mirror!”

“You’re the best example I think I’ve ever seen of the Pharisee who sits at the front of the synagogue giving thanks for not being a sinner like everyone else.”

“I figured you were a Baptist organization. You are nothing more than modern day Pharisees! Judgmental ignorant people. Get a grip.”

To label a Bible-believing Christian who is passionate to honor Christ and to obey God’s Word a Pharisee is a slander, because the error of Phariseeism was not their zeal to obey the Scripture. They had no such zeal. They were zealous, rather, to create their own religious system and to exalt their own self-righteousness.

A biblical definition of Phariseeism is as follows:

1. Phariseeism is supplanting the Word of God with man-made tradition and thereby making the Word of God of none effect. “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:7-9).

2. Phariseeism is rejecting Jesus Christ. “Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils” (Mat. 12:22-24).

3. Phariseeism is perverting the Gospel of the free grace of Christ into a work’s salvation. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Mat. 23:15).

4. Phariseeism is self-righteousness. “And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess” (Lk. 18:9-12).

5. Phariseeism is the practice of religious hypocrisy. “In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy” (Lk. 12:1).

The Pharisees were at the forefront of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and of the persecution of the early Christians.

It is a great error to label a Christ-loving, Bible-honoring, grace-preaching, self-debasing, peace-loving Christian a Pharisee.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they loved God’s Word and took it too seriously.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they were careful to honor the details of God’s Word. Never did Jesus reprove them for such a thing.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they judged by God’s Word. They didn’t judge by God’s Word; they judged by their own vain tradition. Jesus warned against hypocritical judgment, but He encouraged judgment based on truth.

Jesus did not reject the Pharisees because they marked and avoided false teachers. Jesus Himself warned about false teachers and instructed His people to beware of them (Matthew 7:15-23). Jesus commended the church at Ephesus because they had “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” and for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:2, 6). Imagine that! Jesus commended the church for hating the deeds of false teachers. Obviously, that type of thing is not Phariseeism.

Zeal for God’s Word is right and godly. The following testimony expresses the very essence of true spirituality and godliness:

“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way” (Psalms 119:128).

Was the Psalmist speaking here as a Pharisee? Of course not. It is spiritual to esteem all of God’s precepts concerning all things to be right and to hate everything that is contrary to God’s precepts. Note the emphasis on ALL precepts and ALL things and EVERY false way. This is the very strictest sort of Biblicist mindset, and it is encouraged in the pages of God’s Word as the correct mindset and attitude of the man who loves God passionately.

Jesus reproved the Pharisees for turning the law of Moses into a way of salvation, which it was never intended to be, and for their hypocrisy and for their lack of love and grace and compassion. Consider the following reproof:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matthew 23:23).

Jesus didn’t say, “You Pharisees make far too much of tithing and other such things in God’s law. You are much too zealous for God’s Word. Don’t you know that God never intended you to take everything so strictly. Why don’t you lighten up?”

No, Jesus said they did well to take God’s Word strictly by honoring even the details of tithing. What He hated was that they had missed the heart and soul of the law of God, which was judgment, mercy, and faith. Observe that “judgment” is commended by Jesus!

The law was not given as a means to obtain righteousness; rather, it revealed God’s extreme holiness and man’s fallenness and pointed to Christ as the believing sinner’s justification (Rom. 3:19-24; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25). The Pharisees missed the heart of the law which is to love God with all one’s heart and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. The fact that they were complicit in the death of the Son of God is clear evidence that they did not love God.

Candidly, there are a lot of fundamental Baptist preachers that I have little respect for, but I don’t know of any full-blown fundamentalist Pharisees. In my experience, every fundamental Baptist preacher believes too much in grace and delights too much in God’s free righteousness to be a Pharisee. There has been a lot of hypocrisy, though, and there is an element of true legalism within some aspects of the fundamental Baptist movement. I have warned about this often. (See, for example, my free eBook THE HYLES EFFECT, which is available at http://www.wayoflife.org.)

While I can’t speak for everyone, I can speak for myself. And I don’t preach works for salvation and I don’t preach works for sanctification. Everything is by God’s grace and His grace alone. Everything is Christ in me the hope of glory. The essence of the Christian life is not me doing something for God. It was described by Paul as follows: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20).

This might not come across in every single sermon, but it is clear in my thinking and in my personal life and in the overall perspective of my ministry.

As for hypocrisy, I don’t always live up to what I preach. Far from it, but I confess my sins to God (and to man when the situation necessitates) and don’t pretend to any self-righteousness. I know at every moment that the only righteousness I have that is acceptable to God is in Christ and in Christ alone. That is not the thinking of a Pharisee.

We see in Matthew 23:23 that Christ did not rebuke the Pharisees for paying attention to the less weighty things in the law. He rebuked them for focusing on the lesser matters to the neglect of the weightier ones.

The Bible-believing “fundamentalists” that I know do not neglect the weightier matters of the New Testament faith. They aim, rather, to follow Paul’s example and to give heed to “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). They preach Christ’s virgin birth, blood atonement, resurrection, and ascension. They preach justification by grace alone and the Trinity and the personality of the Holy Spirit and the other “weightier” matters of the faith. They also preach church discipline (1 Cor. 5) and the divine restrictions upon the woman’s ministry (1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Cor. 14:34) and other things that are less weighty.

When a Christian today preaches against pop music and Hollywood’s moral filth and calls for modest dress, he is called a Pharisee, but the Bible demands a very strict separation from the world, and this is not Phariseeism; it is New Testament Christianity.

Following are just some of the commandments on this issue, and they are indeed commandments and not suggestions.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).

“Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14).

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12).

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

“Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11).

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 John 2:15-17).

“And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19).

Separation from the world by a born again, blood-washed, saved-by-grace-alone believer is not Phariseeism. It is obedience to God and conformity to His character and will.

The Pharisees were at the forefront of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and of the persecution of the early Christians.

It is a great slander to label a Christ-loving, Bible-honoring, grace-gospel-preaching, self-debasing, peace-loving Christian a Pharisee.

The modern Pharisee would be more akin to the Roman Catholic priest with his sacramental gospel and his traditions exalted to the place of Scripture and his long history of persecuting the saints. The ecumenical crowd doesn’t call Catholic priests Pharisees, though. They don’t seem to be concerned about all of the souls who have been led astray by these contemporary Pharisees.

The only men they seem to be concerned about are those dreadful old “fundamentalists” with their strong Bible convictions and their refusal to smile at error.

Oh, those dreadful fundamentalist Pharisees!

copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature- Receive these reports by email
“About” David Cloud
www.wayoflife.org

New Age 2


25% of people say they believe in reincarnation.

42% say they’ve been in contact with someone that has died.

15% endorse the work of spirit mediums and channelers.

67% read horiscope columns in the newspaper.

50% believe in ESP.

The New Age is extremely powerful. The New Age practitioners include many politicians and influential personalities (note – the ability to pretend your someone else does not automatically give you an open platform to air your political or religious views!).

While people seem to think it first appeared in the 1960’s, the New Age has been around for quite a long time – making the New Age not so new!

The original New Age movement originally started as the Mystery Religion of Babylon. The proponents of new age often cite old Druidic origins of it, but they’re often doing this out of ignorance. Most New Age adherents cannot cite their own history.

The Mystery Religion of Babylon placed experience over knowledge. Ecstatic emotional state was believed to lift one into a higher realm of existence, where one could emotionally be in contact with deity. Recently I listened to a John MacArthur sermon (still working on my Master’s Thesis, and searching for quotes) where MacArthur gave quote after quote on the Mystery Religions in Corinth, where pretty much things hadn’t changed religion wise since it first came from Babylon.

There are some differences, of course. Animal Sacrifice was done in those days. The mystery religions spread throughout the world, carried with them by the peoples who left the Middle East for Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas and all points in between.

the modern new age movement came together from a number of unusual sources. One of the roots of it is Swedeborgianism. Emmanuel Swedenborg was a self professed mystic who claimed the ability to speak to angels and demons – kind of a stupid claim, since, well – demons are angels. And unless you’re born again, Angels are not likely to speak to you, so… three guesses who Swedenborg was speaking to. Swedenborg was born in 1688, and began his mystery religion, which he apparently viewed as a divergent form of Christianity.

It was now, for the first time, too, that he gave a deep consideration to the condition of the Christian Church, revealed in otherworld judgment to be one of spiritual devastation and impotency. To serve in the revelation of “doctrine for a New Church” became his Divinely appointed work. He forwent his reputation as a man of science, gave up his assessorship, cleared his desk of everything but the Scriptures. He beheld in the Word of God a spiritual meaning, as he did a spiritual world in the world of phenomena. In revealing both of these the Lord, he said, made His Second Coming.

— The Gist of Swedenborg, pg. 4

Swedenborgianism presented itself as a form of Christianity, when it in reality was yet another esoteric cult. Swedenborgianism maintained pockets of adherents in the United States.

Swedenborgianism joined forces with Franz Mesmer to create the New Thought phenomenon, popularized by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, surfacing today as the cousin of the New Age movement, the Charismatic movement. While all three movements were separate, it was truly Quimby, among others, who began to popularize the esoteric teachings.

The movement was lumped into a grab bag called spiritualism, which serves as the precursor to the New Age. As it passed into the 19th Century, it met with the bizarre teachings of Madame Helena Blatavsky, a woman living in Aisia who claimed to be a Russian. She founded the THeosophical Society (meaning Theos, God, and Sophos, knowledge).

This is where the odd and cultic origins of New Age really get bizarre. Blatavsky claims to have met “Ascended Masters” (to use the modern term) who instructed her to go to Tibet to learn more. Later critics would claim these people were fictitious, and Blatavsky actually spent the time in Europe. She claimed psychic powers that the masters had taught her how to use these powers. She led a bizarre life, but her most hard fought battle was in trying to change the Spiritualist belief that the spirits they were talking to were “The dead”, and instead that of “ascended masters” and “Angelic beings”.

Blatavsky claimed to study of the Kabbalah in Mentanah, which is extremely doubtful that any Rabbi would teach a Gentile woman Kabbalah. She also claimed during the same time to fight in war disguised as a man. Blatavsky’s life is difficult to research, as she made wildly contradictory claims and falsified facts and events throughout her life.

Oddly enough, Blatavsky’s teachings of the Theosophical Society gathered momentum, based upon books she wrote, which were devoured by the 19th century Europe and America.

The Theosophical teachings gained the most influence in the oddest of places…

Germany.

The Thule societies arose, building upon Spiritualism, Swedeborgianism, Theosophy and New Thought, and wrapping it in German folklore and the operas of Wagner (!), to become the Thule Society. The Thule society’s teachings really become the breeding grounds from which the modern New Age sprung. The Thule Society chose as its emblem the symbol of rebirth used in Asia, the Swastika. Surprisingly, the German Army, a little suspicious of any movement gaining ground, actually used to place spies in every society group. The Thule Society managed to influence a political group known as the National Socialist party, who wrapped the Thule/Theosophy/Swedenborg/New Thought/Spritualist teachings into one political movement, based upon GErman Nationalism. So the German Army placed a spy in this group – and set in motion events that cost the lives of millions of people.

The spy they chose was an Austrian Corporal who had enlisted in the German army.

Adolph Hitler.

Hitler took the Thule/National Socialist party teachings, and enflamed an entire nation in the rhetoric of occultism, manifest destiny, and German folklore. Riding it to power, he very nearly conquered much of the known world. When the Third Reich crashed, the teachings of the Thule Society migrated everywhere its adherents moved to avoid prosecution in war trials.

It went underground in the US, and managed to find one more key to the puzzle.

The Seventh Day Adventists had a falling out in the late 19th century, over the leadership and working of Dr. Kellogg (see my writings on the Seventh Day Adventist cult for more information). The group involved in the Kellogg affair finally uncovered evidence that Ellen G. White was plagiarizing a great number of Christian and sometimes cultic writings, such as the Book of mormon. When the break finally occurred and Ellen White excommunicated some of the Kellogg group, they were in a quandry. They’d lost faith in Ellen White, knew of her plagiarism, but were too indoctrinated in her cult.

So they wrote a book. Urantia. The Urantia papers still are popular among the members of the New Age Movement. It’s bizarre doublespeak influenced many, and set the stage for the last key to the New Age puzzle. It combined many of the teachings of Swedenborg, New Thought, Christian Science, Theosophy, etc.

The Beatles.

The Beatles held an almost religious influence upon their fans. As one person once wrote, “when the Beatles grew their hair long, we grew our hair long. When they dropped acid, we dropped acid. When they went Hindu, we went Hindu.”

Paul McCartney followed George Harrison into the Hindu religion. McCartney pulled out of it after becoming disillusioned by the Yogi they wer following. Harrison never renounced his Hindu beliefs, and the last recording he did before dying of brain cancer ended with Hindu chantings.

McCartney simply took more of a syncretionistic view of religion. And as the most popular Beatle, he proceeded to set the stage for millions of Beatle fans, who grew their hair, dropped acid, and got into Hinduism.

The closest we ever came to disaster for Christians and Christianity was a Beatles fan who dropped acid, grew his hair, dropped out of the army, and began studying Hinduism – until he picked up a hitch-hiker with a bicycle. They drove from Florida to Mexico and back, arguing all the while about Religion. The hitch-hiker was a Christian evangelist, and the Hindu devotee was David Cloud.

History shows who won that argument! Cloud has, by the way, never lost an argument since.

When the Beatles broke up, millions of fans had nowhere to turn for guidance. Some got more into Hinduism. Some went into Buddhism. Some found the Urantia papers.

The 1950’s through 1970’s was crazy for occultism. Books and TV specials were flying off the presses about UFO’s, Bigfoot, the Bermuda Triangle, ghosts, vanishings nad disappearances. The most popular science fiction storys went from “space exploration” to Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land”, a blasphemous fiction piece about a New Age messiah who was a man from Mars, who attempted to teach people Martian language and religion.

The “Stranger in a strange land” book grew very popular with hippies, and in many ways was the start of the hippie movement. When the Beatles broke up, it got even more popular. The next step for its fans was to find anything remotely like it. they found Urantia.

I suppose I should mention the truly bizarre book called “Jonathan Livingston Seagull”, which was written through “spirit channeling”.

The New Age movement was born out of all this mess. You’re interested in ancient Celtic religion, thanks to a low budget UK movie about a Burning Man? You can combine that with Urantia to form New Age. You into Hinduism? You can combine that with flying saucerws and Atlantis. You into Ghosts? Room for them too.

Atlantis myths furnished crystals, which became the next piece of the puzzle. People began searching for any writing they could find that was occultic. Even the Thule society teachings were spread. And it really went wild when Edgar Cayce was discovered. The “Sleeping Prophet” supposedly gave predictions, and his followers proudly explain he read the Bible through every year. Did him no good, as he died without Christ.

And of course, the next spirit channeled books, such as “Jesus calling” and “Seth Speaks” came out.

All the new age really was waiting on at that point was Yanni, really. Beads and bracelets became crystals, figurines, buddhas, peace signs.

So now we have the history of the hodge podge that is the NAM, and we can begin!

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.