Archive for the ‘Faith’ Category

Biblical warring… / The natural family

July 10, 2013

Nothing wrong with a Bible warrior mentality, unless you’re thinking in the flesh and don’t understand metaphors. Biblical Christians fight against evil, lies, and the deceit of the devil, including the lies of those who call themselves Christians but violate the commandment to love their neighbors:

Ephesians 6:
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

Ever since the apostles and disciples spread the Good News, they have been “ministering” to the needs of the world by fighting disease, fighting starvation, fighting infanticide, fighting slavery, fighting genocide, with whatever material means they have on hand to do it, but also with the one gift that changes hearts and makes the other changes possible: salvation in the name of Jesus Christ.

Now, if “military Christianity” means the warmongers among Evangelical Christians in the United States, they deserve the moniker, especially the “leaders”. The worst among them doing disservice to the Gospel are the ones demanding that Christians should do something to stop Muslims, saying they’re out to convert or kill us all. Whether they are or not is irrelevant to what Christians should do.

Brother Andrew of “Open Doors Ministries” warned Christians against going to war in the MIddle East, because, he predicted at the time, it would be disastrous for the Christians who actually live there,

and it would badly hurt the testimony of love of those Christians who are in the best position to actually win them to the religion that preaches “God is love”. Even Mosab Hassan Yousef, “Son of Hamas“, was won after the repulsion of the treatment of Muslims with Muslims in prison and was won over by the love of Christ in the Word itself: “Love thine enemies“. Islam has nothing like this.

(2) The picture of the girl is fine. There is too much not-privacy on the Internet. Once your visage is out there, it’s no take-backs. Another pic is okay, but apparently the objection shows that she’s not doing it to hide herself. The prayerful position of the girl in the picture represents her. We can all learn a lesson about caution. We don’t have to make it easy for the NSA for when they start rounding up the “dangerous” Christians.

P.S. My Mom raised us four kids, God bless her, as a single Mom. Faults and all, I loved her and appreciate it. Some do this better than others, but good can come of it. The natural, nuclear family is the ideal and the standard by which all of them are best measured, and should emulate, as much as possible providing the upbringing a father and a mother would provide.

I gratefully remember my visits with my Dad, a very fine example of a Dad. But I also remember fondly one Marvin, a “father figure” who I guess was part of the “Big Brothers” program. He took me out to ball games, bowling, gospel concerts, did “Daddy stuff” with me, an adult male figure. Rest in peace.

Advertisements

Man’s free will and salvation and God’s sovereignty

June 22, 2013
English: Resurrection of Christ

English: Resurrection of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

—A Calvinist said: “Are you saying that a man can come to faith in Jesus of his own free will apart from grace? Where do you find this in the Scripture?”

 

I don’t say that, because coming to faith in Jesus Christ, whether of his own free will or not, is accepting the grace of God by definition.

 

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

If I give you a free gift, you can take it or leave it. If you reject it, your loss. If you take it, and benefit from it, you cannot say you earned anything, you cannot say that you had anything to do with having that gift at all, because it was my doing and it was not your doing. And so with salvation.

 

God says, here’s salvation. Take it or leave it. Most people leave it. I do not claim to know how it works, but God does. “God is not a man, that he should lie”. We are created in God’s image, as sovereign deciders so to speak. The gift is for everyone, “whosoever will”.

 

If you concede that man has a free will that chooses salvation, but God is the one that chooses to put that will into his heart, this is a squishy deal. It is no better logic than to say that God chooses you for salvation because of the fact that you chose to receive the free gift.

 

It’s a mutually exclusive argument.

 

You can “accept” man’s free will in accepting salvation all you want to say you do, but then you contradict yourself by saying he made it impossible for them to accept salvation. Besides, you have to say that God decided to create the human race so he could throw the vast majority of them into hell, since he picks out some to save.

 

But then alas, that contradicts this verse that tells us the original purpose of hell:

 

Matt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

 

 

Stephen King, Author Of ‘Joyland’: On Growing Up, Believing In God And Getting Scared : NPR

May 31, 2013

Passing on the news….

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/28/184827647/stephen-king-on-growing-up-believing-in-god-and-getting-scared?ft=1&f=1032&utm_source=feedly

 

October 6, 2012
Resurrection River Valley

Resurrection River Valley (Photo credit: DCSL)

The Resurrection of Christ

The Resurrection of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I found an interesting writing by Rich Wendling at the following link, an answer to “skeptic” Valerie Tarico at another link:
http://richwendling.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/pushing-people-out-of-the-church-part-6/

The article starts with

The fact that some naïve Bible study leader ignorantly thought that “dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible” isn’t an argument against Biblical creationism. It does, however, point out the fact that too many Christians are ignorant of both science and the Bible

–> But then they object to using the cockamamie Hopeful Monster theory of evolution against Darwinian evolution. It proves nothing. The ancient Greeks, without visiting Galapagos, were the first to propose evolution. In fact, it is condemned explicitly in Jeremiah as a pagan idea:

Saying to a stock, Thou [art] my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned [their] back unto me, and not [their] face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. – Jeremiah 2:27

Rich makes this point further on:

All origins theories other than the straight-forward Biblical account of six literal days a few thousand years ago take mankind’s fallible ideas and hold them in higher authority than God’s Word. All of these other theories question the authority of the straight-forward teaching of the Bible.

That’s true  but it’s important to mention that belief in the Bible is grounded not in the false “blind faith” professed by many Christians, but used as an accusation against all of us, but these God-deniers still have to prove they are not science-deniers by addressing the science that has converted many a scientist and atheist to young-earth creationist.

The very origin of Christianity is based on the hard evidence of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in bodily form. Demonstrably dead from the piercing of the Roman sword in his side to make sure, as historians say the Romans did to make sure of it, he was seen by “five hundred” in the flesh, eating with them and having  fellowship with them.

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. — First Corinthians 15:6

As always, then, the arguments against the Biblical facts of Christianity are religious, whether they are made by “Christians” or by atheists or Darwinians.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, – Romans 1:22

Whence one of my favorite couple of verses:

[[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. – Psalm 19:1

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.- Isaiah 1:8

Wow. Just wow

July 10, 2012

“If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me”, Job said. (Job 9:20)

This line was found in a prayer uttered by a “prayer” purportedly to a “rainbow Christ” by an “ordained minister” of a “gay Christian denomination“.

With the red stripe in the rainbow, we give thanks that God created us just the way we are.


There were some things that are true in the prayer itself and go against the current traditions of men in churches, but it’s mixed in with poison too. Jesus is non-conformist, and he is all human as well as all divine, and God made sex to be the most pleasurable thing you can get, so you get a bit of “erotic” there too. Women were the crowning creation, last but best! And God invented sexuality! The first commandment was to be “fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth”, meaning have lots and lots of sex until the Earth was replenished, overflowing with people!

So Jesus is certainly non-conformist, God is love, and he that loveth not knoweth not God. He was always an enemy of the “holier-than-thou” stuffed shirts, both of the godly kind and the ungodly kind.

But for the Metropolitan Church, that claims to be Christian, they claim to but they do not thank God for creating them just they way they are. Male and female created he them, and no wonder they mutilated the Bible to have one of their own. They do not thank Him for making them the way they are, they do something else.

What you “are” and what you “do” are two different things. They relate of course but they’re not the same. I “am” a software developer but that’s changeable. My X chromosome is in every cell in my body. Even if they developed science to replace all your X-chromosomes with a Y, you still cannot claim that you’re thankful for the way God created you.

(Too bad Roberts and SCOTUS couldn’t just come up with a new “version” of the Constitution and had to use the semantics two-step instead. Oh wait, I guess you could say they amended it. There’s nothing like “case law” to amend the Constitution the easy way, with stealth RINO Court nominees. That will last until people are fed up with the idiocy of pretending court decisions are like Papal missives that preempt the Bible)

Sodom and Gomorrah had “filled their cup of iniquity” when their judgment hit. Very few truly righteous men, meaning people who think before they just go for the feel-good.

Self-righteousness is the worst sin. The publican begged God for mercy, knowing he was a sinner. He goes to heaven before the Pharisee does. The Pharisee brags about following God’s law, like chastity, regular church attendance, and taking the sermons to heart that make him feel good, and reads Joel Osteen to find out how to “Become a Better You“. These are bigger sinners than the thieves who are genuinely contrite.

She prayed for “healthy pride”, a contradiction in terms. ” Pride [goeth] before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” – Proverbs 16:18

Then points to the “light…within us”. The heart is wicked and deceitful and if you follow the emotions of the moment without checking against facts and logic, you’re done for. Therein lies addiction, avarice, envy, coveting and the rest.

Churches: Constitutionally non-taxable or exempt?

May 31, 2012

Churches were always considered non-taxable due to the First Amendment recognition of free exercise before the 1950s and 1960s, when Senator Johnson pushed religious clauses into the tax code and like magic, like always, another government law created a total new industry of accountants and lawyers to show pastors and churches how to get exemptions from taxes that they did not owe in the first place.

A few IRS officials were amazed that religious institutions were so dumb as to run to beg exemptions from the IRS from taxes they were not subject to in the first place.

The idea is that a truly mutual separation of church and state will not subject the free exercise to the whims or confiscations of the state.

That was one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson insisted in the Virginia constitution on banning ANY state recognition of ANY religious organization, meaning granting incorporation was banned for churches.

Jerry Fallwell, eager to subject the church under the thumb of the state, filed a lawsuit demanding Virginia allow his church to get a corporate charter, and the state was all too eager to make his religion a subject under the state.

I cannot stand it when I hear a pastor say he’s marrying people “by the authority vested in me by the state of…” Marriage is no business of any state, really.

That’s the problem with trying to enforce Christian doctrines with enforced laws. It gets turned on its head against them eventually.

May 26, 2012

A good answer to bogus claims that the Bible has contradictions. It doesn’t.

Chief of the least

‘Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.’ Proverbs 26:4-5

(Note: Hebrew terms of “fool” and “foolish” describe a person who does not believe in God and is ignorant of wisdom based on God’s moral standard.)

Some modern critics assume the ancients were flat-out stupid. Case in point, after a brief glance at Proverbs 26:4-5 an objection may be raised along the lines of: “Look! An obvious contradiction in the very next verse! The Bible cannot be trusted…” And so a superficial argument has been framed.

But the ancients were not stupid.

The author of Proverbs actually intended to pair these seemingly contradictory verses together. And what these verses propose is not a logical contradiction, but a dilemma for the reader. It is a proposal of two choices. Proverbs 26:4-5 reveals two wise and…

View original post 719 more words

King James Bible: Refutation of one Robert Joyner

May 26, 2012

What Robert Joyner shows in this article is the Biblical truism, “Knowledge puffeth up”. But it gave me some good talking points about the King James Bible.

HAVE WE BEEN LIED TO?
By Dr. Robert Joyner
In this article I will show the KJV Only group has repeatedly lied and misrepresented the facts, not just a few times, but over and over. This is the way they propagate their theory. Lying and deception is normal for them.


A common trick of the guilty, accuse the victim.

NEW AGE VERSIONS

Gail Riplinger’s writings are a good example of distortion, twisting the facts and outright lying. When I was sent an advertisement of her NEW AGE VERSIONS, it was evident this book was extreme and way out in left field. She claimed there was a hidden alliance between the new Bible versions and the New Age Movement. She asserted that the New Versions had occult origins. They would prepare the churches of the last day to accept the religion of the Anti-Christ and to receive his mark.


Already getting fulfilled. One report tells of a prophecy instructor sent to churches from the “Left Behind” people, already saying that nobody has anything to fear from an embedded chip (in his right hand or forehead, I might add), because, according to him, the Bible says it is placed “ON” (my emphasis) the skin rather than “IN”. There is only one Bible “version” in English that says “in”, the KJB.

John Hinton, graduate versed in a great many languages including the ancient Biblical languages, blasts away at “on” explaining that the “mark” is from a word that implies an incision, a groove, not face paint.

Anyone in his right mind knows that no Bible will do this. The New Age movement is not built on any Bible. The Anti-Christ will not have any kind of Bible. He will be against all Bibles. Later on I learned that many gullible people were buying Riplinger’s book. That is unbelievable, I thought.
When I saw a copy of her book, it was so evident that everything in it was slanted, twisted, or was a bald-faced lie. She could not get anything right. She even misquoted the KJV.


What anyone in their right mind knows in the real world is that New Agers are quoting their own interpretations of the Bible ALL THE TIME. They do just like modern versions, “Hath God said”, followed by “What is really says is this. What Jesus really said is that.” Blah blah.

[…meaningless content-lacking opinion snipped..]
David Cloud is a strong believer in the KJV Only view, but he said regarding NEW AGE VERSIONS, “It is the frequent error in documentation, in logic, and in statement of fact that gives cause for alarm. There are many good points made in the book, but it is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource.” Cloud went on to say that the book was not accurate in its references, the documentation was unreliable and it contained countless statements which were entirely unsubstantiated.


This is an opinion from a source that  Joyner said in the opening paragraph belongs to a group that continually lies and misrepresents, presumably to refute a stronger KJB opnion that has better facts.

Riplinger claimed she was inspired by God to write her book. She said it was such a direct revelation from God, she hesitated to put her name on it. So she put G. A. Riplinger, which meant to her, God as the author and Riplinger as secretary. So she is saying that God is the primary author.


Joyner’s next paragraphs blows all credibility out the window about inspiration.

The Bible clearly says inspiration stopped when Revelation chapter 22 was complete. Riplinger is doing the same thing cults do when they add their books to the Bible. Gail Riplinger is a heretic. She is not worthy to be taken seriously. Yet thousands read what she says and do not question it. This is amazing!


I read the book and there is not one sentence or thought there than can be reasonably or honestly twisted to imply any claim that she was adding a book to the Bible. It is the modern versionists, however, who are always –admittedly!– putting their own words into chapters and verses in the Bible. They admit it when they claim that “no translation” is perfect.

What is amazing is that so many smart people can believe that God would leave us without an inspired Bible standard, so we can KNOW things like the Mark of the Beast going “IN” the skin rather than “ON” the skin.

How can someone with the degrees and training which Mrs. Riplinger is supposed to have, make such mistakes? The answer is this. Mrs. Riplinger is not a Bible scholar. All of her degrees, her teaching, and her writing had been in the area of interior design. When she taught at Kent State, it was in the Home Economics department. She taught interior design.


So what? God’s word includes writings at the hand of a 12-year old prophet (Jeremiah), a fisherman (Peter), a physician (Luke and Acts), a bunch of “unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13), a humble shepherd boy (David) and let us not forget the best example, a carpenter by trade.

And the critics who invoke “the praises of men” as an argument against those who don’t have it, remind me of the Pharisees who told the Jews, “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48)

NAMES OF KJV ONLY BOOKS

Just the names of these crazy KJV Only books show the lack of logic the movement is built on. One is called THE FINAL AUTHORITY. Everybody should know the original Hebrew and Greek is the final authority.


When did God say only the “original Hebrew and Greek” is the “final authority”? Where is the Biblical reference for this?

And by the way, how does this author know exactly what the “original Hebrew and Greek” actually says? There are countless copies of copies. There are not only different “families’ of ancient copies in codex and manuscript form, and nobody –nobody at all– can show us with finality one of these “originals”. Parts of inspired Jeremiah in their own “versions” show that what finally got passed on in the first generation was a re-inspiration of the first writing.

Where did God say he would never speak in a different language, or inspire a translation the exact way he wanted it?

However, Jesus did say that “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)

Jesus promised that “not one jot or one tittle” would pass, till all is fulfilled. We all know he was obviously talking about ALL the meaning of ALL the scripture, down to the most minute detail of nuance of meaning.

The KJB translators were not only the best scholars of the English language and of the Biblical languages, they were believers, devout, who also knew the Bible a lot better than modern translators, who often make mistakes that they could avoid had they known it.

However, the purpose of this book is to show the KJV is the final authority. Another book is GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE. Of course God only wrote one Bible but the book tries to show God only wrote one version, which is entirely a different matter. But KJV Only folks don’t see the stretch here: the change from Bible to version.


God is not the author of confusion. Failing to see the significant difference between “divisive” and “heretic” is not a laughing matter, or between a mark of the Beast “in” the right hand from a mark of the Beast “on” the right hand. Or a thousand other differences.

Or take the difference between the gospel of Mark with or without The Great Commission passage.

Another book is THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME. The argument of this book attempts to tell readers that if something is different, it cancels whatever it differs with. That is faulty logic. A Ford and a Cadillac are different but one does not cancel the other. Both will carry you where you want to go. They both serve the same purpose. So Bible versions are different but they serve the same purpose. One version may be in old English, another in Modern English, but both serve the same purpose. KJV Only people can’t see this. Another book is, LET’S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE but the only evidence given is one sided and the only thing it proves is the lack of logic of the author. Is Logic and common sense being abandoned by modern preachers and Christians?


A Ford and a Cadillac does cancel each other out unless you’re a millionaire. You buy one or the other, most of us. And one DOES cancel the other. Ask ANY mechanic whether repairing a Ford is the same as repairing a Cadillac.

But automobiles give me an even better comparison to make.

At one company my manager was a Cuban refugee, an accountant, who had worked on one of Castro’s collective farms. One day he was going on a trip to Havana. The farm mechanic asked him to see if he could find an old 1954 Ford pickup repair manual so he could figure out how to fix their Russian made pickup. The accountant asked him how could that work?

The mechanic explained that the Russian pickup was an EXACT COPY of the Ford model. There are lessons there about economics and socialism and dictatorship and corporate espionage, but in this context the fact is that the Russian trick was a COUNTERFEIT copy, a truck that purported to be something it was not.

A phony dollar bill has a lot of little things that are just like the real thing, but there are differences that make all the difference.

If it isn’t God’s word 100%, then it’s phony and you can’t trust it.

People can get saved using a counterfeit, but along the way if you keep using a counterfeit you’ll get caught.

WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION?

The KJV Only group is so against dynamic equivalency (This term means that translators give the meaning, rather than a word for word translation). They contend the KJV is a word for word translation. Actually there is no such thing possible. All translators know this.


Of course they do, and of course the KJB translators knew this better than anybody, and since I know of NOT ONE KJBO advocate that even says this, it is a “straw man” argument that means absolutely nothing to the issue.

The issue is that the “dynamic equivalence” philosophy is totally destroyed by the fact that Jesus said the Word would be preserved down to each “one jot or one tittle”.

The author wasted a lot of paragraphs refuting this straw man. The KJB is a straightforward translation that does not take liberties with a paraphrase philosophy of translation.

Actually the NASB is a more literal translation than the KJV. If the KJV Only people really wanted a literal translation, they would like it but instead they curse it.


The NASB is translated from a small set of manuscripts known as the Alexandrian line, and it’s actually God that curses anyone who removes parts from the books that are parts of the Bible (The Great Commission, the adulterous woman story).

VERSES LEFT OUT?

The KJV people ask, “Why do the modern versions leave verses and words out?” I think they have the question reversed. It should be, “Why does the KJV insert so many words and verses?” The fact is, the Textus Receptus and the KJV translators included most any verse or phrase that was in any manuscript, which was available to them. The modern versions put the verse in only if the manuscript evidence required it. This is more logical. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text, which is a derived text. It obviously incorporates into itself the earlier readings found in both the Alexandrian and Western texts. When manuscripts differed, they would put in both readings. For example, in Luke 24:53 the KJV says they were “Praising and blessing God.” The Alexandrian text says “blessing God.” The Western text says “praising God.” The Byzantine text joined both readings together rather than omitting one reading. Erasmus even put verses in out of the Latin vulgate. So there are verses and phases in the KJV that are not found in any Greek manuscript. Examples are parts of Acts 9:5-6 and Rev. 22:14. Remember it is just as bad to add to the Word as it is to delete.(Rev. 22:18)


The KJB translators were devout believers and had the Word of God in awe, so they followed their knowledge guided by their devotion in the renderings, and by their fruits we know them when we get into details.

Actually many verses that are left out of the modern versions are repeats. For example, in Mark 9, the KJV says three times, “the fire is not quenched.” The Modern versions have it only once.


This makes a reader wonder whether he is being honest. The Bible is FULL of repeated verses. “These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:” (Prov 6:16). Many of the words of Jesus are repeated throughout the Gospels. Paul preaches a gospel of grace not works in many different ways.

Talking about adding and leaving out verses, the 1611 KJV added 14 entire books, a total of 172 chapters, called the Apocrypha. Certainly no other version adds or takes away this many verses. The 1611 KJV is the worst version of all about adding verses. How dare the KJV Only people to even talk about leaving out verses! I know Peter Ruckman and others give silly excuses and explanations for the 1611 KJV containing the Apocrypha, but the bottom line is, the original KJV contained the Apocrypha.


Even the 1611 printing had disclaimers on the Apocrypha, and in the earliest subsequent editions they quickly realized the confusion it was causing and took it out. On the other hand, the modern translations almost all are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts that include the Apocrypha, some of them including extra books like “The Shepherd of Hermes”.

Those facts are listed in Gayle Riplinger’s book, and this guy claims to refute the book?

THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT


He then defends the Alexandrian text without examples that refute the criticism of them, by just saying there are good people and bad people everywhere. Of course he skips over the actual arguments and presents no real defense, because there is none.

WESTCOTT AND HORT
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort are the main scholars the KJV Only advocates love to hate. Gail Riplinger and others have misquoted and misinterpreted what they said. They even quote W.W. Westcott and attribute it to the scholar B.F. Westcott. Riplinger and others quote B.F. Westcott’s son when he said his father had investigated spiritualism. They use this against Westcott.


Somebody lied about this. Riplinger had the right Westcott and Hort, and their sons wrote about them and exposed them. The two actually questioned their own choice for a translation, “Are you sure?”

Their sons (yes of that Westcott and Hort) wrote and confirmed that they hated the Bible (the KJB was the Bible then), they said the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale, they thought the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ was contemptible, they said anybody who believed in the miracles was deluded, and anybody who believed in the Resurrection was especially demented. And I can believe that the one son wrote that their “investigations” were no good. Maybe he had more sense than his father, more love for God.

But what is really demented is their preference for the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two contradict each other in more places than any of the other Alexandrian manuscripts among themselves or any of them differ from the Byzantine.

The Sinaiticus was snatched by Tischendorf during travels in the middle east, from a trash basket where the monks had lazily let it lie for unknown centuries, waiting to be burnt. He stole it –that’s right, stole it– with promises of remuneration that motivated the monks to let him take it. Years later they claimed he had swindled them.

The Vaticanus they found in an extensive search through the Vatican’s ancient rooms, specifically looking for an alternative to the Byzantine.

They are older because earlier generations of Christians with spiritual discernment had discarded them. They used the better ones for their copies, which of course wore out faster. That’s why the Byzantine line is more recent.

ANTI-BAPTIST KJV

It is well known that King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to “harrow out of England” all Baptists. The King James Version was rejected by Baptists when it first came out. When the Baptists first came to America, they brought the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. In fact, some of the first Baptists to arrive here had been run out of England by King James.
King James, in 1612, imprisoned a Baptist preacher named Thomas Helwys for a tract he had written opposing the state church (Church of England).
John Bunyan, a Baptist and author of PILGRIMS PROGRESS, spent many years in the Bedford prison because of persecution from the Church of England (which King James and the KJV translators were part of).


Now this is very telling. Here he criticizes the Authorized Version by way of using King James, who did not do translation though he knew the languages, but thinks it’s okay to use a Catholic version from the Vatican with cooperation from Vatican authorities counts against the Alexandrian versions.

As a matter of fact, to expose the truth even more, he has to now explain why he prefers a family of translations that has more approval from the Vatican than the KJB or the Byzantine Greek documents for that matter. Oh yes, and why do his modern translations make sure that their end product is approved by Catholic scholars?

Who is the bigger historical persecutor of Baptists? Anglicans or Catholics?

PRO CATHOLIC

A heavy Catholic influence was exhibited in the KJV from the time of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who compiled the Greek text. The reason he put I John 5:7 in his Greek text was because the Catholic church threatened to excommunicate him if he didn’t. This verse is found in only two late Greek manuscripts. It is not found in the Majority text. Erasmus knew it did not belong in his Greek text. But the worst thing to a Catholic is ex-communication, so he put it in. He also put in other verses from the Latin Roman Catholic Bible.


Blah blah, pure speculation based on a need to get things from OUTSIDE the Bible to use to criticize the King James Bible. There is not one reference to examples from either side of the debates, just pure ad hominem. They don’t like the messenger, so they’re criticizing how he does his hair.

The Gunpowder Plot blows the accusation to pieces. King James blessed the suggestion of a Puritan to make a translation that would be used in all the English-speaking world in 1603 and it was underway by 1604

In 1605, the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. Its mastermind was a Jesuit priest, and their intent was to blow up the Parliament building during a speech by King James, to cut off the head of the government and install a pro-Catholic coup in its place.

The Catholic church at the time HATED translations of the Bible to the vernacular and banned its subjects from reading it. John Knox (1514-1572) was a priest in the Roman Catholic church who did not even know there was such a book until he saw it on a list of banned books.

God is not the author of confusion. Why would he want us to have a hundred different “translations” of his Word? The fact is, there is absolutely no Biblical basis for saying God would never anoint a modern rendition of his Word in the way he wants us to read it.

He said he’d preserve every single “jot” and every single “tittle” of meaning in his word. Not the general “message”.

Let your communication be yea and nay, we are told, meaning straightforward. There is one standard. Go check these things for yourself.

 

If you are “guided by Christ” you know he will not contradict the scripture.

April 12, 2012

ALL studies are guided by the metaphysical foundations of whatever the student or scholar believes, they are 100% inseparable. BUT it is still the duty to know why you believe something, or else “get out”, so you can be one of those Christ talks about that needs healing.

The thing is, every one without exception who actually is guided by Christ will not put a question mark on the word, but like Christ said “My word is truth”, and like it says in Isaiah 8, “To the word and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”.

Otherwise, every man will “do what is right in his own eyes”, and look where that got us, I mean “Christians“.

KJB Clarifications: Answers to Questions

March 2, 2012
Bible

Bible (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Rich Wendling says he doesn’t understand why anybody would be KJBO and he asks some questions in his blog:

Theological Positions I Don’t Understand, Part 1:

http://richwendling.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/theological-positions-i-dont-understand-part-1/

Apparently he has had people in his life who used to take a KJB-Only position but have changed. The sad thing is that this is more an indication that they themselves did not understand the reasons why it may be God‘s position, because they have moved away from that understanding.

There is a LOT more to insisting on the KJB as THE standard for Christians than just tradition.

Let’s take his questions in raw form, as is:

#1. There are several different texts used in Bible translation.  How do we know the texts upon which the King James was based are inerrant?

The supremacy of the KJB does not just depend on its based-on text, the Textus Receptus, which is also known as The Majority Text, as it comprises about 95 percent of the manuscripts and codexes from ancient times that exist today of the New Testament. The Hebrew text used for the Old Testament is for most translations the Mazoretic, which is pretty much agreed to by all scholars as best representing the originals.

There are two main body of texts. The Majority Text, which is majority for getting the most respect from the earliest Christians in most ancient times, the text the Byzantines-then-Greek Orthodox never gave up.

But we must understand anyway that today there is absolutely no existing “original” text of any book or part of the Bible in existence today. What we have are multiple generations of copies of copies. So when any of the modern version advocates or anti-KJB commenters talk about “only the originals are inspired”, what are they talking about?

Because they do not know WHAT they are talking about, because there are NO existing “original autographs” anywhere in the world today, those are long gone on the dust heap of history. So by their own claims, they have NO BASIS to back up what they say about fidelity to the so-called “originals”.

But it’s a good question, How do you know? There are good reasons for the Textus Receptus over the Alexandrian texts, among other things being that the Alexandrian texts claimed as basis and used in modern versions h ave bigger differences among themselves than they do from the Majority Text.

Another is “By their fruits ye shall know them”.

#2. How can any translation be inerrant, since we don’t know what some Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible actually mean?  How could they have been translated correctly?  For example, the Hebrew word תיבת or teiveh only appears twice in the Old Testament.  It is the word for Noah’s ark, and the word for Moses’ baby basket.  Nobody knows exactly what it means, though.

“Nobody knows exactly what it means” today, maybe, but this is another evidence of the excellent knowledge of the 70 or so brilliant scholars that worked on the King James Bible. These are people who had a dedicated, sincere love for the Lord, and at the same time did not lack for fluency in the Biblical languages. They wrote prose in those languages, they could hold debates in these languages, they could have revived them in a way similar to the Hebrew spoken today in Israel, except that their Greek would have been closer to the ancient Koine.

But they did not manifest the hubris, the pride, or the guesswork of the modern translators when it came to a word that they really did not understand.

For example, when they came across the Hebrew word “behemoth” in the book of Job, they did not take a wild guess like your modern versions. “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.” -Job 40:15. They didn’t even add the misleading NIV footnote saying it could be a hippo or an elephant, which between the lines says “your guess is as good as ours”.

But the “elephant” guess is WORSE today than even just treating it like the KJB does, because it’s a sign of unbelief.

No the KJB scholars did not know the word so they transliterated it, and if you read the text you’ll understand it’s the description of a dinosaur without doubt. But the modern graduate of the dumbed-down schools of today cannot believe Genesis, they do not believe the Bible cover to cover, so they guess at something else.

#3. A related problem is that there are many Hebrew and Greek words for which we do know the meaning, but there is no corresponding English word with exactly the same meaning.  How can any translation in any language be inerrant?

Let’s explain by example.

Revelation 13: 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Note that word “in”, as in “in their right hand”. The NKJV, NIV, NLT, that is really ALL the modern translations replace the word “in” with “on”.

At the following link find some amazing insights into the guiding hand of God and the expertise of the KJB translators in using the word “in” instead of the misleading “on”, and the wild perversion of the word with the word “tattoo” in some:

http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/hinton_rev_13_16.html

From John Hinton: The preposition epi can also mean in, to, at, with, along with, and a number of other similar meanings. It must be read in context before it is translated, and unlike the correctors of today, the KJV translators were able to do that. They did, and they realized that a xaragma, which is translated as mark, involves a scratching or etching into the skin. This, we could imply, would include injections, although the idea of injections was not known when the text was written. Any philologist of even meager ability realizes that prepositions cannot be put into neat little boxes. They virtually never translate perfectly from one language to another. For instance, if we were to make a word for word translation of “turn the light on” or “turn the light off” into any foreign language, we would not be understood at all. For another example, when one learns a preposition in Arabic like ‘ala, the meaning of “on” will be learned first. If we were to try to translate it as “on” in every instance, we would make a complete mess out of the language, because ‘ala means a whole lot more than just “on”, and it frequently requires either a lot of experience or a lot of thought to discern what it means in a given passage. I am sure that there is not a language in the world that uses prepositions that does not have other examples. The translators of old put their discernment to work when they translated epi; the modern version pseudo-translators did not.”

That’s why he felt compelled to introduce the above paragraph with this commentary:

Revelation 13:16 is one of those verses that fakes and second-rate Greek scholars use to puff themselves up, and it requires only the most elementary level of study. Yes, indeed, when epi is used as a preposition it is most often translated as “on” just as all dictionaries will tell us. I did learn this the very first day that I began studying koine Greek, and probably learned it the first day that I began studying Greek twenty some years ago when my focus was on Modern Greek. This is as basic as it gets, so why do these Bible “correcting” pipsqueaks think that these great scholars of old, who were far more educated than they will ever be, did not know the most common meaning of epi? This is not just ignorance, but the worst kind of arrogance. The fact that they chose not to translate epi as “on” demonstrates that they knew something the modern quasi or pseudo-scholar does not know. These 53 men (the 54th died early) knowingly translated or approved of the translation of epi as “in” in its context for a reason.

#4. Even if it were possible to have a perfect, inerrant translation – how do we know it’s the King James?

That’s the best question yet. You can just follow the word itself for this one, even the modern perversions haven’t been able to cover up the Biblical basis for this.

While we’re into this one, keep in mind that the modern translators have absolutely no Biblical basis whatsoever to say that God cannot have inspired a translation for modern times. None. Their “Biblical” objections are actually ad hoc character assassinations mostly, and the use of the word “cult” as pejorative, and other irrelevant noise.

God promised in Psalm 12:8 to keep his pure words preserved, as silver purified in the furnace and tried seven times.

The most important thing God has to tell us, to show us, is his word. Some anti-KJBO screeds take exception to Psalm 12, saying it means something else. Even based on their mouthings, even if you think it’s a promise to preserve the poor, what do you think is more valuable to God but the word. After all, that’s Jesus without the flesh (John 1:1)

God knew that English would be the standard language around the world in today’s troubled times. It is the international language of commerce, trade, diplomacy, business, journalism, science, technology, and as a software developer I can tell you that ALL programming languages are based on English. To be a real hacker, take it from Eric Steven Raymond, one of the original group that invented the word at MIT in the earliest computing days:

http://tinyurl.com/2t9ab

“As an American and native English-speaker myself, I have previously been reluctant to suggest this, lest it be taken as a sort of cultural imperialism. But several native speakers of other languages have urged me to point out that English is the working language of the hacker culture and the Internet, and that you will need to know it to function in the hacker community.”

At every international airport in the world, if you cannot speak fluent English enough to handle fast-talking emergencies, you cannot be an air traffic controller. I’ve lived in Latin America, and doctors follow developments in medicine in the English journals.

That’s merely evidence that it would be most likely according to God’s desire to have us “make disciples of all nations”, to use English.

If it hadn’t have been ‘er, who’d have been ‘er, as the saying goes. If not the KJB, which? Every criticism of the KJB that I have ever seen, every one, without exception , has been itself flawed and has proven to be without merit.

God is not the author of confusion. There are more than 100 English language translations and “paraphrases” oday on sale. I Corinthians 14 says God is not the author of confusion, and it’s talking about interpretation of tongues.

Can God inspire a translation? There are at least a dozen places in scripture that were obviously first written as translations from a different language, including Joseph’s conversations in the Egyptian, Daniel’s in Babylonian, and “King of the Jews”, and modern translators claim that those original translations were inspired, so they agree that a God can guide a translation.

There is internal consistency in the King James, it does not contradict itself. Doctrine testifies to it. In the King James you put out a heretic from fellowship, in the NIV you put out Jesus, because it says to remove anybody who is “divisive”.

#5. Even if the King James Bible was inerrant in 1611, when it was written, how can it be inerrant now, since the English language has changed so much in the last 400 years?  Many English words do not mean the same thing in today’s English as they did in 1611 English.

The King James Bible kept the English language stable over 400 years, after its previous erratic wanderings. The KJB is just as understandable today as then. A lot of the words that have been called “archaic” by people who did not know better are simply a matter of simply learning English, not archaic at all.

Along those lines, this is one complaint about the “thee”s and “thou”. But those words had gone generally out of use by the 13th or 14th century. The reason those words are in the KJB is for accuracy. It distinguishes the second person singular pronoun from the second person plural. There are a number of passages where this makes much difference.