Walking The Tightrope


Being a fundamentalist today is like walking a tightrope. You’ve got to make it past Lordship Salvation without getting wrapped up in it.. You’ve got to make sure you’re a dispensationalist. You’ve got to avoid Ruckmanism/Pearlism/Hyles-ism/ Riplinger-ism. You’ve got to avoid THeological liberalism.

Every teaching tool you turn to, you’ve got to be careful. Many commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, harmonies, teaching tools of all kinds, are written by theological liberals.

Logos is the most serious Bible study tool I’ve ever owned. But I’ve got to wade through interviews of people who’ve uncovered “Startling new discoveries on salvation” on the homepage – and what it boils down to is, it’s a heretic with a new book Logos is triyng to sell. Logos runs it by their resident scholars, who are theological liberals, and they see nothing wrong with it, because they don’t believe ether.

Accordance is written by a woman who’s devised a great study tool, but it’s clear from her blog entries on the Accordance web site that she too is caught up in THeological Liberalism.

Bound up in ALL of this is CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and Roman Catholicism, because all Christian denominations should be one and united, despite serious doctrinal error and the basic facts that most people who claim to be Christian are not saved.

We need to be TOGETHER, and UNITED! It would be RUDE to tell someone who believes in Salvation by works that they’re hellbound! Why, it might make them feel bad!

“What about the eternity in hellfire part?”

“That’s not my responsibility.”

It IS your responsibility. If you partner with some theological liberal and don’t bother to tell him he’s hellbound, what will you say to him at the Great White Throne judgment when he says, “Why didn’t you say something?” Yes, you’re going into heaven. But he’s going to Hell. I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that the resident scholar at Logos is not going to be with me in Heaven, but will be screaming in torments forever, in the lake of fire. So much so, that when his materials are free giveaways by Logos, when his classes are avialable, I avoid them like the plague. The same goes for NT Wright, and this new guy that looks so grim when he talks about his new discoveries about salvation being works oriented. The same goes for David Stern, the mis-translator and author of the Jewish New Testament translation. And CS Lewis. Etc.

I can understand why many IFB just lock themselves away with their King James and plug their ears. I’ve been tempted to do that myself. But I’m learning HUGE amounts about the Bible.

THe single hardest thing for me is, staying away from other translations, to stay away from other denominations. Wow, it would be GREAT to stop fighting, to stop swimming against the current. But we’re in the middle of the great falling away, the great apostasy. To give in is to join up, to help establish the wordwide faith that will help the Antichrist move into power. And I don’t want my eternity in heaven to be tainted with the knowledge that because I gave up, because I stopped fighting, I helped establish the Antichrist.

WAAAY too many people are going to have their eternity tempered with that realization. Way too many.

Don’t you be one of them.

Being A Christian – The Bible 7


Yesterday I probably dazzled a few of you with information you’d never heard before.

Today, I’m just going to fill in the gaps and conclude, and we’ll go on from there.

AS I pointed out yesterday, the anti-King James Bible movement tends to completely gloss over these issues. The most famous proponent of the non-King James is James White, who tries to convince you in his popular book that the Vulgate was the Bible in most use by most Christians.

That’s a deliberate mis-statement. The Vulgate was not in use the first few centuries, and was used by Catholics, not Christians.

This is a distinction that Christianity used to be able to make, but no longer, as Billy Graham has done much to convince us they are Christians. That’s why you hear phrases like “Lord of the Rings is a Christian book – it’s written by a Christian!” and “C. S. Lewis is my favorite Christian author.”

Both Tolkien and Lewis were Roman Catholics. C. S. Lewis converted just before he died, and was given the Last rites. And I’m not really sure how a book involving sorcery can be considered “Christian”. I was a serious Tolkien fanatic growing up, and I have a vested interest in trying to prove they’re Christian, but yeah… they’re not. There’s no way to justify a literal belief in the Bible and still be able to read those books.

Sorry.

Getting back on topic, (I’m sometime “prone to wander”) the Bible used from day one until this very second was the Textus Receptus/Ben Chayyim texts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were NEVER used by Christians. And we have copies of Bibles translated into the common tongues of various nations (such as Waldensian Bibles, the Diodati, etc.) and they follow the readings of the Syrian texts.

So, really, Scholars have a lot of talking to do to explain why they abandoned the Bible used by Christians in favor of other texts NEVER used by Christians. See, it’s not the King James Only movement whose job it is to explain why we will only use the KJB. When any group abandons a previously held position, the burden of explaining is on them.

The only answer they can give us is, “Theologically we disagree with any text that favors the deity of Christ, that Christ is the only way to God, and that anyone who does not come to Christ must suffer eternal punishment.”

That’s all they have. They’ve constructed elaborate rules of Textual Criticism to justify their position, and they conflict with established rules of Hermeneutics.

So, they have no justification for their position.

It’s not for me to explain why I am King James Only – it is YOUR job to explain why you prefer to use a forgery and a heavily edited, incomplete heretical manuscript as the basis for your Bibles!

My last point on this is what James White refers to as “Conspiracy theories”. He claims King James Only believers suffer from the fear that there are deliberate attempts to subvert the Bible, the fact that missing verses that support the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith alone – are all part of a vast conspiracy to remove those doctrines from the Bible. He assures us that nobody is trying to corrupt the Bible, that there is no conspiracy.

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:1–5, KJV)

That’s really odd, because I believe in the normal literal method of interpreting the Bible – and sure enough, Genesis 3 shows that there is someone who first questions the Bible (“Hath God said?”) , causes people to whitewash it (“neither shall ye touch it”), then minimize it (“lest ye die”), then finally that someone denies the Bible (“ye shall not surely die”), and substitutes a different god to worship – themselves (“Ye shall be as gods”).

Those are all the tactics of the Textual Critics, many of whom (not surprisingly) are Universalists, hell deniers, theological liberals, and unitarians. It just feels a little odd that when they have avowed beliefs, that their translations should tend towards those beliefs!

And it feels very odd that when Satan’s plan is to counterfeit the things of God, that James White is saying Satan has no vested interest in questioning, adding to, whitewashing, minimizing and finally denying the word of God!

People, we have an enemy. His first target is the Bible, and I haven’t read where he stopped that attack!

I have a lot of articles on Textual Criticism and the Bible version issue, and I can assure you that – you’ve never been told everything on this issue, and that you’re being lied to. If you’re interested, please read the other articles I’ve got in this category!

psalm11951

Being A Christian – The Bible Part 6


There’s a lot on the Bible, isn’t there?

This should show you the absolute importance the Bible should hold in the life of a Christian.

Next is conforming your mind to that of the Bible. I hear all kinds of people say “So and so’s a Chrisitan”, and then I look them up, and they believe something the opposite of the Bible. For instance, Billy Graham believes that any person who is a devout Hindu will go to heaven. John 14:6 says the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ.

Bily Graham says that Hell is a timeout, a dungeon someplace where people sit there, separated from God, and very sad. Luke 16 says that Hell is torment, agony, and flames that never stop burning.

Billy Graham has not comformed his mind to the Bible, but the Bible to his mind. I could say the same thing for many, many Christians.

So if you’re one of those Evangelicals who say “I believe everyone who REALLY LOVES GOD will go to Heaven…” the question is… what does the Bible say?

Or, “My truth may not be your truth….”

It’s the same answer for both. John 14:6. If you believe contrary to what the Bible teaches, then you’ll have to explain yourself to God someday. It is your responsibility to conform your beliefs to the teachings of the Bible. Failure to do this will have devastating effects on your Christian walk.

Leaving that, let’s move on to the big Bible doctrine, and I think this may be the last one we deal with for now on the Bible!

Bible preservation.

I wrote recently about the Inspiration of the Bible. Both of these doctrnies literally require one another.

And here’s an important fact, you need to understand. Every false teacher and wolf in sheep’s clothing al will claim to believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible…

…and they’re lying when they say it.

Learn to recognize when someone makes the disclaimer they believe the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts… they’re lying. Because there is no original manuscript containing all 66 books of the Bible. The original text of Genesis was long since dust before Matthew was even written down. However, if we understand that copies of the Bible are inspired and inerrant… then our understanding is more aligned with how God means it.

Some will go so far as to say they believe in the preservation of the Bible… and they’re lying.

Many false teachers interpret the words differently than do Christians. I’ve told recently the illustration of a new Bible College president’s attempt to fix an utterly worthless statement of faith to something far more Biblical…

…and the entire teaching staff of the college rebelled.

Warning sign. It meant clear house. It meant “fire people”.

So, he took the new statement of faith to one staff member, who read it and scoffed. “I can make that mean anything I want it to mean!” She said arrogantly.

“You’re fired.” He answered.

“I have tenure! you can’t fire me, I have a contract!” She told him triumphantly.

“I can make that contract mean anything I want it to mean.” He answered.

Quite literally, if I were given a scholarship to Liberty or to Fuller, or even Regent, I’d probably be expelled in a month.

Because I believe, and many of them do not.

Bible preservation is tied to several Bible verses…

“Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5–6, KJV)

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

“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” (Mark 13:31, KJV)

“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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18–19, KJV)

The fact there is going to be a judgment tels us that the standard by which things are judged – the Bible – must remain on Earth and in use by the churches.

Until recently, this has been understood to mean the Syrian family of texts (known today as the Textus Receptus or Majority Text), which is the Bible in Greek.

It has also meant the Old Testament in Hebrew, called the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew text. These two texts have been in use by Christians since 30AD until this very minute.

Complicated, right? Not really. Remember the New Testament was written in Koine Greek (the Greek of that day and age), and the Old Testament in Hebrew. The names are just what scholars have taken to identifying these families of manuscripts as.

There are specific rules about Hebrew Bibles. If one letter is wrong, one letter alone… the entire scroll would have to be buried in a Geniza, a place where old manuscripts and manuscripts with errors are left. Under Jewish law, any manuscript other than the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text is to be buried and not used.

All of this is about to get very important. And some things I told you were important… we’re about to tie all together.

Theological liberals do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. They work to “recover” the original words of the Bible.

You can’t say that, and literally believe Mark 13, Matthew 5, Psalm 12 and a host of other verses all strongly warning not to tamper with God’s word at the risk of your immortal soul.

So, the theological liberals dismiss for reasons unexplained the Textus Receptus and the Ben Chayyim text, simply because they don’t like it. They came up with complicated rules like “The shorter reading is to be preferred.

Remember when I said the most common error in copying is seeing a repetition of a word and omitting the words in between? A flawed manuscript is shorter.

And when someone dislikes a Bible verse and removes it, the reading would be shorter.

They invented rules like “More clear readings must give way to the less clear.”

That’s the exact opposite of the rules of hermeneutics we learned yesterday.

They came up with the rule that “the most common error is adding to the text by pious scribes, and so those readings are to be omitted.”

But that’s the opposite of the truth.

What do you call the opposite of the truth?

A lie.

You’re being lied to by so-called scholars.

Am I scaring you? I’m not the only one saying this. There was a book published at the turn of the 20th Century called “The Fundamentals” by R. A. Torrey. Volume One of the 5 book set dealt with these lies in detail. Literally, everything I’m saying in this article can be found in that book. And that book was the work of over 20 concerned Christian men. So, no worries… I’m not the only one saying this. Most of Christianity seemed incensed about this subject in 1880. Today, well…. I’m in a minority.

There’s no need to “discover” the words of God – we’ve had them all along!!! Literally, real Christians have lived, prayed, worshiped, read, and died for these texts that have been in use by the churches since the original manuscripts written by the apostles. We have over 5,000 manuscripts of the Textus Receptus family, all agreeing almost word for word, letter for letter.

But the scholars prefer two manuscripts, not the 5,000… They prefer Vaticanus (called B for short) and Sinaiticus (called Aleph for short).

Aleph is written in Attic Greek, the wrong language for the time of Jesus Christ. Attic Greek had given way to Koine Greek two centuries before that. It would be like me writing a book today in Middle English or Old English, languages that bear little or no resemblance to the English of today. They would be almost impossible to understand.

Sinaiticus, also called Aleph, was found in a trash bin about to be burned in a monastery, filled with monks… and one room chock full of the skulls of monks who’d lived there before. Huh.

We’re told most of our Bibles come from Sinaiticus/Aleph. You’re being lied to. The readings that come from Sinaiticus are actually only the ones missing from the other text….

Vaticanus. Vaticanus has been edited in some places 6 times throughout the centuries. The current guess is that it was written by Origen, a heretic who was a Gnostic and didn’t believe in the deity of Christ. Another theory is that it was written by Eusebius, Origen’s pupil, and suffered from the same theological heresies. A lesser known theory is that this is the last remaining manuscript of Pope Sixtus and his Sixtus Bible.

Sinaitiicus is constantly praised as being the “oldest manuscript in existence.” People used to dealing with old manuscripts should know better… it looks barely two centuries old. And right about two centuries ago, when Tischendorf found Sinaiticus, a man came forward and confessed to writing it. And he even claimed it was a clumsy forgery, and he was embarrassed by it.

Did they investigate it? No, they waited for the news to blow over, and Tischendorf began hawking his discovery all over again. Even thought someone, Constantinus Simonides admitted he’d written it only 12 years or so before.

So, scholars are placing all their effort onto an admitted forgery and a manuscript written by a heretic.

If you believe in Bible Preservation, as described in Matthew and Mark, it makes no sense whatsoever for the preservation to have entire words blotted out, pumiced off the manuscript, overwritten, crossed out, and entire books of the Bible not present in either manuscript.

It makes no sense.

But if you believe those verses, then it makes sense to use the manuscripts Christians have always used, for 2,000 years.

“Does it really matter?”

Yes, it does.

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3, KJV)

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3, NASB95)

“came into being” versus “made”. It’s a 79% difference between the verses.

“By Him” versus “Through him”. One shows Jesus Christ as the creator of the Universe, the other one shows him as some passive portal through which God’s power passed to make everything. In other words, not God.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:” (Philippians 2:6, KJV)

“who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Philippians 2:6, NASB95)

They don’t say the same thing. Jesus Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God. Yet two modern Bibles say that he didn’t regard equality with God to be a thing he should grasp!

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV)

“By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16, NASB95)

Tell me if those two verses say the same thing! “God was manifest in the flesh” versus “He was revealed in the flesh”.

“Received into Glory” suggests that Jesus Christ came from Heaven and was returning to the throne in Heaven, but “taken up in glory” just means he went to heaven.

To avoid these kinds of heresies, these denials of Christ, you need to use a Translation made ONLY from the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Ben Chayyim Hebrew text.

That means one translation. And I think you spotted what it was.

The King James.

When you read anti-King James web sites, they always dwell on Benjamin Wilkerson, A seventh day adventist. And strangely, none of them ever talk about the origins and history of Aleph and B.

Because if they did, you’d get rid of your NASB, your ESV, your NIV…

And just use the King James.

They know all this, and they’re not telling you. Telling you a deliberate falsehood is lying.

Omitting to tell you the truth is lying.

psalm1382

Surprised


I was searching for information on Independent Baptist preachers last week, and I found out that Peter Ruckman had died in April.

I never heard that.

I knew he’d retired from preaching earlier this year. He passed away at 94.

I am sorry for his family, friends and supporters.

What REALLY surprised me was the tone of some of his followers. On a blog discussing it, someone left a comment that (The following are direct quotes and not my words – if I misquote you, please let me know so I can fix it…) “I I never really followed him. I’d heard he was racist and..”

And the next comment was, “well, there’s someone black a few posts above who liked him. Why don’t you go sell HIM your stories???”

Another person commented, “I’d heard Ruckman believed in UFO’s, and babies not having a soul till they took a breath, and that concerned me…”

The responses then went ballistic, with name calling and personal attacks.

My thoughts are –

  1. I had a lot of concerns about Peter Ruckman as well. All of the above concerns, plus a lot of others. But i’ll say that naysaying him while his followers are mourning him is probably a really bad idea. Wait, and then later on when someone’s posting a blog article praising the man’s teachings, THEN voice your concern.
  2. It’s really hard to discern the tone people use when responding in text. I’ve read things I’ve said that sounded harsh, when in reality the tone was intended as quite mild. But there’s no mistaking personal attacks. I’m really surprised at the MEANNESS of some of Ruckman’s supporters. When someone comes on to talk about the man’s doctrines, here’s an appropriate way to answer… “Brother, right now we’re mourning his passing. I understand you had concerns, but this is not the time to bring them up.” And probably everything would have been just fine.
  3. Personal attacks against people you disagree with is never appropriate. Although, I can recall at least once, just once, raising the stakes against Atheists on this blog, raising my tone to one of ridicule, and you’d have thought I was speaking to the New Atheists the way that… well, some of them speak to me!

Probably not a good day for Independent Baptists I think. Mistakes were made on all sides.

On the other hand, maybe now we can start getting some bona fides respect for KIng James only believers, now that Peter Ruckman has gone on to his reward. To quote David Cloud, “(Peter Ruckman) has done more damage for the cause of the King James Only movement than anyone else on earth.”

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.

King James – Preserved Word?


I was prowling back on the 22nd, looking to see if there’s any other free Bible software worth looking at, and getting disappointed. I stopped at Costas Sturgios’ website for Theword Bible software, to see if it’s gotten any better. I know some people talk about how they love it – I despise it. When I first started this blog on my old laptop, I was alternating between E-Sword and theword, and kind of leaning toward Theword, but every time I tried to minimize the program, I’d close it, because Costas set the windows up slightly off from where the industry standard are, and the buttons slightly smaller.
It was irritating, but better than the incredible delays from E-Sword. Then someone bought me Bible Explorer, and I stopped using both, and got rid of Theword.
Anyways, while poking around his web site, I did see that there was a new free book offered on the main website, with a title along the lines of “Pure TRanslation?”
Okay, I know where you’re getting at with that. I read the blurb, and knew where the book was going. Apparently the author claims to have been King James Only for “many years”, and “researched the Bible Version issue”, and “discovered the truth behind the false claims”, and a disparaging comment about not being “deceived by cults” any longer.
There’s King James Only, and then there’s KING JAMES ONLY. I don’t know which of them you refer to. Were you part of the Ruckman cult, the Riplinger cult, or were you convinced of the truth of the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic text?
If you’re part of the first and/or second, then I can’t address that. Yeah, you were in a cult. Seriously. And what you were researching mostly was backlash against that cult.
Here’s the facts, that I’ve never seen disputed. People bring up Ruckman (who has passed away) – but to quote David Cloud, “I believe Peter Ruckman has done more damage to the King James Bible issue than good.” He’s destroyed any credibility we could have had. And Sam Gipp is fond of saying, “Ruckmanite is what they call you when they’re losing the argument.”
Gail Riplinger’s bizarre teachings on the King James are some of the shoddy scholarship you see out of some Christians – you know, the “He was published by Zondervan, and you know who else is published by Zondervan, so there’s a connection, and they’re undoubtedly doing goat slayings together at midnight!”
She is utterly opposed to anyone writing any book, dictionary, encyclopedia, concordance or lexicon on the King James Bible – unless its her. If she does it, it’s okay. Her “research” on the Strong’s Concordance was embarrassing. Again, it’s a black eye for King James believers.

Let me answer someone I respect right now, because he’s got a personality quirk that’s just as bad. D. A. Waite is a stalwart defender of the King James Bible. But if you don’t agree with him, you run the serious risk of having pamphlets printed about you where he lambasts you publicly, frying you mercilessly and almost slanderously. Witness the recent revelations that there were some financial irregularities in the Dean Burgon society, and several long term members resigned over it. Waite promptly attacked them publicly. If you did some things wrong financially through ignorance, then you need to appoint a treasurer and solve the issue in good confidence. If you had a moral failing, then repent of it, hand the money to someone else and get on with the work! But don’t publicly attack those who resigned from the DBS over it! (I have never been a member, but I suppose I should join someday).

Okay, we’ve addressed the cultic claims. Now let’s address the research.
The scholarship has been done many times already. Elzevir, Erasmus, Stephanus… they went through and looked at the Bible manuscripts in Greek, and determined the proper readings out of the manuscripts used.
There’s your research.
When the VAST MAJORITY of the manuscripts belong to the Antioch family of manuscripts, and less than fifty belong to Alexandrian, it’s obvious that those 47 manuscripts are flawed, erroneous, or deliberately corrupted – not the vast majority. I did a series earlier this year on textual criticism, and some of you doubtless were shocked at the deliberate agendas behind the spurious and arbitrary hypotheses behind the textual criticism. I stated the origins, I stated the rules, and I examined those rules in light of accepted Biblical interpretation and logic, and those rules were found to violate accepted Hermeneutics.
By the way, if you’re looking for information for a dissertation or thesis on the Bible Version issue, I’ve got enough on this web site to pretty much write one.
Hmmm….
Anyway, The modern translations are based upon Wescott Hort, and that’s most definitely a red flag. They decided that out of the two manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was the most accurate.
Why?
A feeling. Yup, that’s what they said! A Feeling! Wow… amazing scholarship there! Was this the “scholarship” that the author of that book uncovered that convinced him?
Or was it the Textual criticism rule of “The most clear reading must give way to the most obscure”, which is the direct opposite of the Hermeneutic principle of “We accept the clear readings when they are majority, and interpret the obscure in light of the clear”?
Yessir, I’m convinced too! A “Feeling”! Wow! How come I never saw scholarship like this from Stephanus?
Ready for a truth? And I DARE, double dog dare any textual critic to deny this – but if the Textus Receptus source documents were even one tenth as corrupt and as heavily edited as Vaticanus, they’d be screaming that fact loudly. With many passages edited as many as six times by six different scribes, Vaticanus is as reliable as a witness who keeps changing their story. We acccept manuscripts that are a “true copy”. Heavily edited manuscripts are rejected, which is why Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers never bothered with Vaticanus.
Here’s an assertion, that accords with the Bible, which is inspired and inerrant… If the Alexandrian family of 47 manuscripts were indeed the ones preferred by God, they would have remained in constant use by the churches. The Christians copied their Bibles from other manuscripts – that’s why the Antioch family has so many thousands. I had one well meaning atheist or textual critic, I don’t know which, try to come on here and say authoritatively, “We don’t have 5,400 manuscripts… we have only a few hundred.” That’s incorrect. You have to compile the list of lectionaries, uncials, miniscules, papyri and codexes. If he was talking about just codexes, yes, he was right. If on the other hand he was talking about complete manuscripts in the various forms, then he’s completely wrong.
Since the Alexandrian family has ony 47 copies or so, then the Alexandrian manuscripts WERE NOT THE ONES PRESERVED BY GOD. Indeed, since they deliberately change words and remove entire verses that support the cardinal doctrines of Christianity (deity of Christ, vicarious atonement, the Trinity), the evidence supports the facts that these are heretical manuscripts, written by heretics such as Ebionites, the Arians, and the Gnostics.
So… why are the “scholars” pushing for manuscripts that deny the deity of Christ? That deny the Trinity? Was THIS the research that convinced that author???
Here’s the bottom line. Like me, he’s probably got some software with many, many cool translations. And the pressure to conform, to stop swimming upstream all the time is enormous. He caved. That’s it. He caved in to the pressure, to the temptation.
my seminary strongly advocates makiing sure before you accept the call to the ministry to make SURE your doctrinal stances. Know that you know that you know.
And now it’s out there that he caved. And if he ever repents, and REALLY examines the issues instead of trying to justify his compromising…
He’s going to lose all credibility forever.

Ways in which Fundamentalists are discriminated against


I’m often astounded when I hear Evangelicals call themselves Fundamentalist. They have no idea that in many ways, they are so NOT Fundamentalist, it’s crazy.

But what I see is the rabid anti-Fundamentalism sweeping Christianity – the same ideology the Lord decries in the letter to the Laodecian church in Revelation 3. “Be lukewarm, like us!” They cry. And many of them resort to calling Fundamentalists “Pharisees.” Good to know that not only are you Biblically ignorant and PROUD of it – but you’re also Anti-Semitic.

A Pharisee is an enemy of Jesus Christ. A Fundamentalist is not. Fundamentalists stand for the Christian faith, a literal belief in the Bible – and usually God’s Bible, not rejected and heretical texts which the unBelieving and unSaved “scholars” prefer.

So, let’s say you discover overnight, that the Bible is God’s word, inspired, inerrant, preserved. Now, there’s a lot of “Christians” who call the Bible “Inspired” the same way you’d call Mozart’s music “inspired”. When I say inspired, I mean, we believe God dictated the Bible to men who wrote it down.  Many “Christians” claim Fundamentalists don’t believe that anymore.

Huh.

No, that’s an article of faith that Fundamentalists will not let go of. When they say, “Luke wrote the book of Luke”, they’re saying “It might have errors because Luke wrote it, and Luke was a man.” I say instead, “God wrote it and gave Luke the words to write down. It has no errors – God wrote it.”

So, if you became a Fundamentalist, you’d find yourself having problems with a LOT of Christian materials. Commentaries that question God’s word. Bible dictionaries that try  to present the unSaved “Scholar’s” view of things – which usually is their wish or pet theory being passed off as truth to unsuspecting Christians. You’d have to reject a lot of Greek handbooks, because many of them ascribe to “Textual Criticism”, which is Atheism passing itself off as Christians. If you’re trying to tell me Mr. Aland or Mr. Metzger are saved, you’re going to have to cite some serious evidence, because based on their testimonies, I’m going to come out and say – no, they can’t be.

You’re going to have trouble with a lot of Sermon starter books, that have little “tidbits of the Greek” because they push – again – a heretical manuscript instead of God’s Bible. You’re going to end up rejecting most materials on Revelation because – let’s face it – most of them are written by persons who allegorize the Book of Revelation, or accept the heretical manuscripts instead of God’s Bible. I have a commentary on Revelation that seems really good, but I’m having to wade through a lot of “the scholars now say…”. I’m sorry Mr. Seiss, but had you any idea they were lying to you?

You’re going to have a lot of trouble with pre-printed Sunday School materials. I’ve found so many elementary doctrinal errors and “Scholars say” references, I don’t know what to do.

You’ll grit your teeth over the way people praise Billy Graham, ignoring his outright heresies. Yes, he used to be great. But once he started promoting Baptismal Regeneration, there’s a problem.

So… is this Hypocrisy? No. I don’t quote from heretical greek texts. I quote from God’s Bible. When I refer to the Greek, I refer to the Textus Receptus. When I look at “The hebrew”, I’m looking at the Hebrew Masoretic Txt, the Ben Chayim text. When I give my opinion on the Bible, it is “The Bible says…”

So, I’m not a “Pharisee.” I promote the Bible as the word of God, not the Talmud. I promote only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ, certainly not a trait associated with Pharisees.

So… what does that leave the people who question the word of God? Who promote other ways to be saved? Who refuse to disassociate with heretics and false teachers?

What does that imply about them?