Why Buy Swordsearcher?


Why did I buy Swordsearcher? I already own Logos. I already own Accordance. I own Quickverse. I own WordSearch.

I have Bible Analyzer, King James Pure Bible Search, E-Sword, and theWord. I had Davar on my computer until I took it off. Bible by Olive Tree, and Xiphos.

So, why did I spend $60 to buy Swordsearcher?

The issue is fairly simple. I wanted a premium Bible software written by a Fundamentalist, a Bible Believer. Brandon Staggs doesn’t write a great deal on his blog about Fundamentalism – he doesn’t even speak on King James Only-ism. The only public stand he takes on the issue is a single comment on the frequently asked questions for Swordsearcher.

But the fact remains, it’s a Fundamentalist program written for Fundamentalists by a Fundamentalist.

Logos is written by Faithlife, an exceptionally Ecumenical program written by Evangelicals. Most of the tutorials and materials they have are theological liberals who deny the sufficiency, inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. The fact the founder of Faithlife has no qualms about offering that shows that this is probably his viewpoint as well – a New Calvinist theological liberal mindset that makes Karl Barth look like a Fundamentalist. If you’d like to fix this, a letter writing campaign to get me installed as Resident Fundamentalist would go a long way!

Accordance would be my other option for premium software, but they too have a theological liberal mindset. The materials they offer reflect this, although not as bad as over at Faithlife.

Word search is… in need of a massive overhaul, and the mindset there is Southern Baptist. Not too bad, but still they use words like “Church” when they mean “Kingdom”, and obviously consider Catholics as Christians (as does Logos and Accordance). I have a lot of time invested into Word search, but I switched to Logos a few years back from Word search and I’m not looking back.

But mostly (and some of my old readers will understand this), I did it to protect myself. If you sit in the midst of scorners, you will end up scorning too. It’s possible I could end up reading the NASB and quoting John Calvin, and wondering endlessly whatever happened to “Q”. It’s far more possible I could sprout wings and lay eggs, but still, it’s a possibility.

So I wanted a Bible program that I could use 50% of the time that would protect me, and help me to stay Fundamentalist, and stay true to the Bible.

And of course, I wanted to make sure that I had software where the text of the King James Bible remained unaltered. Recently, the ESV on all my other software was updated without my permission (and since I don’t read it, I didn’t much care). If they could do that to the ESV without my say-so, then they can alter the Bible also.

Keep this in mind when choosing your Bible program. If worst comes to worst, I’ve also got a defunct Bible program that will be getting ZERO updates – Quickverse. Once upon a time, it was the gold standard of Bible programs – and Findex ran it into the ground.

Conclusion

I would recommend to all of my readers who are looking into buying premium Bible software and $60 is a stretch to buy it, consider Swordsearcher. It’s actually a fantastic piece of Bible software, very usable and configurable. There’s just one package for $60. Add ons are all third party, and of course, David Cloud offers for $30 an add on package for Swordsearcher –  the “Way of Life Encyclopedia” and “Things Hard to Be Understood”, a work I’d love to see expanded into a 5 volume set!

Advertisements

Faith Vs. The Modern Bible Versions


It’s been a strange year. I’ve only bought three David Cloud books this year. He’s released some books I’ve told others they absolutely need to get.

So a few days ago, I bought this book. And of course, work gets busy right away so I’ve only read the first few pages. Which means at this rate, it’s going to take me probably 15 years to read it – so I’m waiting for time to be able to read it.

It’s got almost 800 pages.

In many ways, I suspect that some of what’s in David Cloud’s other books can be found in this one. David Cloud tends to create what is called in Advertising circles “Swipe files” – a file where you put your most commonly used phrases and expressions. By copying and pasting, you can eliminate a lot of typing.

So I’d recommend that before you get this book, you get all his other books on the King James Bible first. This way you don’t buy the others and think, “wow, I already had 70% of this book”. I still have one or two of his on the KJV to get, and probably should have gotten this one last. But I’m impatient sometimes, and I couldn’t hold off on getting this one any longer.

It’s really funny that when people want to talk about the King James issue, all anyone talks about is Ruckman. Sometimes they’ll talk about D. A . Waite. none ever mention David Cloud. Cloud has never been invited to be on John Ankerberg’s TV show. I tell you what, I’d love to be on John Ankerberg’s TV show – but he’d have me thrown off the set ten minutes into the show, because I’d start attacking his definition of Bible, of inspiration, and of inerrancy. Most certainly, John Ankerberg does not believe in an inerrant Bible.

Reading books like these encourage me, and keep me going. It gets tough to be a defender of Fundamentalism, because few are listening. But those few are those that seek after God’s heart, who are asking, “What does the Lord want of me? What can I do for the Lord?” People like that end up becoming Fundamentalists.

So I’m looking forward to Cloud’s book, because this time he’s not worried about keeping to a specific page count, he’s trying to present the case for the King James Bible in total, a one stop reference for anyone wanting to pick up the shield and jump into the fight.

Hint. I’m talking to you.

The Trojan Horse of Christianity Pt. 2


The second issue of the Trojan Horse of Christianity is Scholars.

We bow to scholars who are not saved.

My edition of Logos (Logos Bronze) came with writings by Kirsopp Lake, who is a theological liberal.

Let’s deal with this. I asked my readers to tackle a post on Faithlife TV (the video reports produced by Logos) where Michael Heiser gave a straw man definition of Theological Liberalism, and defended it. Nobody was able to, so I’ll have to finally answer it, over a year later.

If you do not believe the Bible literally, you’re not saved. There may be degrees of ‘understanding’ and ‘belief’. But it won’t matter at all in the lake of Fire whether you believed everything else, but denied the Deity of Jesus Christ. Different degrees of belief and understanding are meaningless. You believe the Bible or you do not. And that’s how God sees it. Try reading Ezekiel some time and see how God views those who question Him or call Him a liar.

Scholars try to write long tomes to try to justify their lack of belief. They went so far as to pay another Theological Liberal to try to find the original text of the Bible in Egypt, so they could hopefully justify their disbelief in Jesus Christ.

Never mind they HAD copies of the original texts – they were so firmly convinced that the Bible in their hands was in error, because it condemned them.

So they paid Count Tischendorf to go to Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, and search for the missing texts.

He didn’t find anything. Everything he was finding was agreeing with the King James.

Until – miraculously a week before the money ran out – he found a scroll in a wastebasket, ready to be burned, that said something different finally from the King James. Many of the verses that supported the deity of Christ were edited or removed. So he championed it, returned to Germany to raise more money, He returned triumphantly, bought the manuscript, brought it to Europe, and basked in newfound fame and glory.

Until the man who forged it spoke up and admitted to forging it when he was much younger.

Constantinus Simonides admitted to writing Codex Sinaiticus.

He admitted it. He confessed it.

So Tischendorf waited for the controversy to die down, and then began touting his discovery all over again.

That’s one of the two documents that form the basis of your modern Bible. Forged by a man who denied Christ, and discovered by a man who denied Christ, and championed by the men who denied Christ.

The modern Bibles are the Trojan Horse that heretics have hidden inside, to emerge and destroy Bible believing Christianity. I’ve heard people say “well, that’s not in the original manuscripts”, so they can deny it. The average Christian claims to believe in the deity of Christ, but has trouble finding verses to support it, because they’ve all been edited or removed from the modern versions.

This is how doubt creeps in. When you believe something because you know it’s true, but you can’t find the support. And there’s a LOT of people out there making fun of the King James Bible – including Charles Swindoll – so now you feel foolish looking it up in a Bible where it’s EASY to find proof of the deity of Christ.

Scholars say something, so you believe it.

What Christians aren’t being told is this – the whole textual Criticism thing was dealt a fatal blow in the books “The Fundamentals.”

Like Tischendorf, they waited for the furor to die down, then began to repeat themselves as if it never happened.

It’s all been dealt with – yet they keep spreading their poisons as if they were fact.

I don’t care if you can translate Aramaic – if you do not agree with the Bible, if you deny the Bible or claim to have “…different levels or shades of Biblical understanding” – you need to be fired and find a job doing anything else.

If they are unwilling to fire you, you should resign.

Common Misconceptions About Fundamentalism


One of the biggest reasons most Christians are not Fundamentalists is they’ve been fed too much rhetoric over the years by theological liberals who are trying to keep their jobs. If most Christians read their Bibles and believed them, then there’d be quite a few famous Christian teachers who’d be out of a job.

One of my favorite teachers has slipped in his firm belief in the Bible being inspired, and it was a horrible blow to me. I noticed that his statement of faith had nothing about an inerrant, inspired Bible, and I emailed him and told him so. There was no response, and his statement of faith is unchanged. That can only mean that he no longer believes the Bible to be the word of God. I’ve had to stop going to his website. So, let me explain what Fundamentalism really is, how to get there, and WHY you should get there.

Fundamentalism is a belief that the Bible is complete and without error in whole or part, written by God – and a desire to conform our lives to it.

There you go.

“But I believe that!”

If you believe that, you’re a Fundamentalist. But here’s where I’m going to get you – every Christian insists they believe in the Bible, but there’s a disconnect. When you read something in there you don’t like, a lot of you justify your lack of belief by saying, “Well, that part’s not in the original manuscripts.” Or, “Well, that’s not for today.” “That was just Paul.”

If you’ve said that, you do not believe the Bible is without error in whole and part, inspired and preserved, the word of God.

You’re fairly close to being what the Bible describes as an “unbeliever.”

“WHAT???”

It’s true. You either believe the Bible is correct, inerrant, inspired, written by God and preserved – or you don’t. One of the biggest inconsistencies among Messianics that firmly drive me nuts is that often they hold themselves to be the guardians of the word of God, yet a majority of them do not believe the canon is sealed, do not believe the Bible is without error, and do not believe it is preserved.

Fundamentalists believe with perfect faith there is no errors. No “this was not in the oldest and best manuscripts” – we even challenge that whenever we hear it, because most of us have done the research, and found the oldest and best manuscripts to be not so old, and heavily edited – therefore unreliable.

We especially get suspicious when we look at the verses that are always in question – any verse supporting the doctrine of Jesus Christ being pre-existent, Jesus Christ being God in human flesh, any evidence for the Trinity, any evidence for the resurrection. Every reference to prayer and fasting is reduced to “prayer”. Funny that THESE should always be the ones in question.

Most of the references to the shed blood of Jesus Christ is removed from the “oldest and best” manuscripts. Some of the experts believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written by Origen, an Arianist Gnostic who interpreted the Bible allegorically, and did not believe Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. You won’t be meeting Origen in heaven, I’m sure.

I personally do not believe Origen wrote Sinaiticus – because Sinaiticus was written by Constantinus Simonides in the early 19th century. It was a forgery. I do agree it was either Origen or Eusebius who wrote Vaticanus – or possibly Origen wrote it, and Eusebius was the first of many editors (unlike the Textus Receptus, which wasn’t edited).

So one of the “Oldest and best” manuscripts is a clumsy forgery, and the other was written by a Christ-denying heretic who did not believe the Bible literally, and simply took out of the manuscript what he didn’t like.

Most of what you’ve learned about the Bible was written by heretics who don’t believe it. Textual critics, who denied Christ, wrote all of the incomprehensible rules about the Bible – not the ones you’ve heard, but the ones saying “The Bible is to be treated like any other book.” That’s the first commandment of Textual Critics. That statement should shock you.

Everything changes when you believe the Bible has no errors. I have to say it that way, because so many people say with a straight face that “The Bible is inerrant” but later on you hear them say “Well, that was added in by a pious Scribe”. If they can say both with a straight face, they’re lying about one or the other.

When they tell you that none of the disputed verses concern any of the cardinal truths and doctrines of Christianity, they’re lying.

When they tell you that the disputed verses run to only a handful, they’re lying. The total number of verses in Revelation are less than the number of disputed verses. They literally amount to 1 and 2 Peter, the Epistles of John plus Jude.

That’s… um… a lot.

Your Bible has no errors.

Your Bible has no mistakes.

Every word is there for a reason.

Every verse in the King James Bible was present in the original manuscripts.

Paul did not add things because they were cultural.

Paul wrote things because God told him to.

There are no errors, no mistakes, no contradictions.

Once you grasp on to the fact that when you hold the King James Bible you’re holding the word of God in your hand, your entire outlook changes.

The changes in my Christian life were immense after that.

Once you realize that God said, “Pray without ceasing”, and not just nice words written by some guy named Paul, you begin to think – “Gee, I should pray without ceasing!”

You’re going to forget to do it, but see – your attitude has gone from “Paul says…” to “God says” or “It is written in the Bible…”. That places a LOT more authority on that. That’s why Andy Stanley is an unbelieving heretic. He says we need to stop saying “The Bible says” and instead say, “Paul writes in Romans…”

That’s only because Andy Stanley is a Barthian heretic and unbeliever.

When you grasp this mindset, that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, authoritative word of God and our only rule of faith and practice… everything changes.

You begin to look at people you always thought were Fundamentalists – and with a shock you realize that either they don’t believe or are misguided.

And then you begin to notice the Bible says authoritatively, “Come out of her, and touch not the unclean thing” when talking about the world.

You notice that you are commanded to be “Not unequally yoked”, and suddenly you realize that verse isn’t talking just about marriage. You notice the verse in Romans 16 where it tells you to mark and avoid false teachers.

And you think, “God must have a reason to tell us that.”

Now you’re a Fundamentalist.

It’s that simple. That’s really all it is. You believe the Bible, and try to conform your life to it.

The things that people don’t like about Fundamentalism are Fundamentalist because that’s what the Bible commands! Should you associate with people who’s idea of salvation is works?

The Bible says no.

Should you associate with people who’s idea of salvation is to be sprinkled with water as a baby?

The Bible says no.

Fundamentalists see things as black and white because that’s how the Bible presents it. You’re saved or you’re not. Your doctrine is right or it’s not. If your doctrine is wrong a little bit, it’s still wrong. Just delete the “little bit” part, because you can’t find that concept in the Bible.

“We need to have dialog with people that have a different faith tradition!”

No, the people with a different faith tradition have the same Bible you do. They know that salvation requires repentance. They know that salvation is a spiritual, one time event and that it’s forever. They know that baptism is by bodily immersion. They know that being sprinkled with water as an infant is not salvation.

So they’re wrong. They teach error. Timothy was told to keep his doctrine without spot.

There’s nothing in the Bible about dialog with people who labor in error. The Bible calls it false teaching.

We’re told to mark them and avoid them. We’re told to rebuke a heretic once or twice, then avoid.

Don’t like it? Your argument then is with God. And then that reveals a spiritual condition that needs to be addressed.

The reason so few are Fundamentalist is because so few are saved. Are there Evangelicals who are truly saved? Yes, but you can’t be a Fundamentalist for very long in an Evangelical church.

Believe the Bible, and conform your life to it. It’s that simple.

Why I couldn’t Sign the Online Petition for Inerrancy


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can’t have it both ways.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Philip C. Dean”

There never was an answer.

Textual Criticism


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

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

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

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

Why?

Where are the original manuscripts?

Gone. Faded away.

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

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

So, what exactly is Modern Textual Criticism?

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

Regain. The implication is that the text was lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The utter impossibility of this cannot be emphasized.

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

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

The answer was, “Scholarship.”

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

The chairman answered, “Yes.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KJV Only


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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