Spiritual Deception in the Highest 21.2

What about a unitarian? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So before I wrote this one, I wanted to speak to someone who knew more about this than I do since my searches hadn’t found anything. I spoke to Dr. Warren on campus here who runs our center for New Testament manuscripts. His thoughts were mine. The new translation committee did have a Unitarian, but God uses flawed instruments. I was also told the KJV scholars weren’t all the salt of the Earth either. So as always, the source material can be found here.

“When the company of New Testament revisers (for the Revised Version) were ready to begin their work, a communion service was held in Westminster Abbey. A Unitarian member of the committee partook along with the others. There was serious criticism of this … The upper house of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution that NO person who denied the deity of Christ should take part in the work” [S2P156].

“Westcott expressed his loyalty to apostasy when he threatened to quit if the Convocation were successful in ejecting Smith [the Unitarian] from the Committee. ‘I never felt more clear as to my duty. If the Company accepts the dictation of the Convocation, my work must end. I see no escape from the conclusion'” [S1P165].

Westcott and Hort found an ally for their plan to abolish the Traditional Majority Text, when Dr. Vance Smith, a Christ denying, Unitarian preacher, was seated on the committee.

The language of the last paragraph is problematic as one gets the impression of Westcott and Hort as wicked schemers making a devilish plan to destroy the KJV. Hardly. There is no sense here that Westcott endorsed the beliefs of Smith, but he could have endorsed the credentials and ability.

As to the Unitarian, Dr. Hort said: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of the acceptance won before the hand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming a Unitarian” [S1P165].

What were some of Dr. Smith’s beliefs? Dr. Smith called the belief in Christ’s 2nd coming ‘erroneous’. He said:

“This idea of the Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely TEMPORARY incident of early Christian belief. Like many another ERROR, it has answered its TRANSITORY PURPOSE in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace” [S1P165].

Which is all really poisoning the well. It’s interesting that Johnson didn’t spend any time telling us anything about the members of the KJV team. What problems did they have?

Dr. Vance Smith was NOT the only problem within the translation committee. The following quote summarizes the members in general:

“The reputations of the committee members were so tainted that Queen Elizabeth and her chaplain … refused to give it official sanction … Half the Church of England declined involvement, as did the American branch …” [S3P435]. Also: “Others … left after seeing the SINISTER character of the ‘New’ Greek text” [S3P435].

There are so many ellipses and I question a primary source using the idea of sinister and putting it in caps. I remain skeptical of the context of the quote until Johnson can go to primary sources and give it.

When comparing the scholars of his day to those of the King James committee: Bishop Ellicott, the CHAIRMAN of the Revised Version Committee, said:

“We have certainly NOT YET ACQUIRED sufficient critical judgment for any Body of Revisors to undertake such a work as this” [S3P435].

(Please note: “Advocates of modern versions assume that they are the product of scholarship far superior to that of the translators of the King James Version of 1611, but this assumption is not supported by the facts” [S2P13]).

Which is shown by looking at just one translation and not considering all we have learned about text since then and the Greek and Hebrew language.

It was said that Bishop Ellicott was the committee chairman. Actually, the FIRST chairman was Bishop Wilberforce. One meeting, was enough for him. He wrote to a friend: “What can be done in this most miserable business?” [S2P291] “Unable to bear the situation, he absented himself and never took part in the proceedings … One factor had disturbed him considerably – the presence of Dr. G. Vance Smith, the Unitarian …” [S2P291].

I understand some people having concerns, but I don’t. God used Judas to fulfill His plan. Ultimately, aside from Jesus, God has to use flawed instruments in this way. That’s all that there is.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 20.1

What about the manuscripts the KJV didn’t use? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going to skip a brief introduction here as there’s not much to say. This time we start looking at the other manuscripts that weren’t used by the KJV translators. The link to the source material can be found here.

Vaticanus: ” … was written on fine vellum (tanned animal skins) and remains in excellent condition. It was found in the Vatican Library in 1481 A.D.” [S5P60]

In spite of being in excellent condition:

“This Codex omits portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 – Genesis 46:28, Psalms 106 – 138, Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastorial Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14” [S1P72]. “These parts were probably left out on purpose” [S5P60].

I couldn’t find anything about this, but I will grant it for the sake of argument. What I want to know though is about the last part at least. How is it known these were left out on purpose? Johnson doesn’t say.

“Moreover having been found in the Vatican library, the suspicion was all the more compounded. We must recall that the Renaissance was lifting the great curtain hiding medieval superstition and forged documents, allowing the light to shine in …” [S6P135].

Ah yes. Anything Catholic must be bad. Strange the Reformers never seemed to question the manuscripts that way that I know of at least.

“According to authorities the date of its writing is placed within the years 325 A.D. to 350 A.D.” [S4P20].

This could be true, but what authorities? Johnson doesn’t tell us. Did he do any research on his own?

“Vaticanus, though intact physically, is found to be of very poor literary quality. Dr. Martin declares, ‘B’ exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession” [S1P72].

Which wouldn’t be a problem anyway. We could recognize that easily. This is a common scribal issue.

“Besides all that – in the gospels alone it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies agree together as having the SAME words in the SAME places, the SAME clauses in the SAME places and the SAME sentences in the SAME places” [S5P60].

I have looked over this a few times and I am still not sure what he’s arguing.

“It seems suspicious indeed that a MSS possessed by the Roman Catholic Church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the ‘mass’ as totally useless. (Please read Hebrews 10:10-12). The ‘mass’ in conjunction with the false doctrine of purgatory go hand in hand to form a perpetual money making machine for Rome. Without one or the other the Roman Catholic Church would go broke!” [S1P72].

Yet somehow when the Catholics produced their own translation they left in that portion of Hebrews. Odd.

G.A Riplinger adds the following about Vaticanus (i.e. ‘B’):

“The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, recording it on magnetic tape and reproducing it by an electro-optical process, reveals that B has been altered by at least two hands, one being as late as the twelfth century … A few passages … remain to show the original appearance of the first hand. The corrector omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect” [S3P551].

Which is also a common scribal practice anyway…..

“B agrees with the Textus Receptus only about 50% of the time. It differs from the Majority Greek in nearly 8,000 places, amounting to about one change per verse. It omits several thousand key words from the Gospels, nearly 1,000 complete sentences, and 500 clauses. It adds approximately 500 words, substitutes or modifies nearly 2,000 and transposes word order in about 2,000 places. It has nearly 600 readings THAT DO NOT OCCUR IN ANY OTHER MANUSCRIPT …” [S3P551].

Considering Riplinger isn’t a scholar, I give her zero credibility here based on what I know of her, but all Johnson cares about is “Does this person agree with my conclusion?”

And: “Linguistic scholars have observed that B is reminiscent of classical and Platonic Greek, NOT the Koine [common] Greek of the New Testament …” [S3P551].

Which linguistic scholars? Name them.

“Protestant theologians question its lack of use by anyone for 1300 years-then its sudden ‘discovery’ in the Vatican in 1481” [S3P552].

Which ones?

“Its [i.e. Vaticanus’] immediate use to suppress the Reformation and its subsequent release in 1582 as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible are logical, considering the manuscripts omission of anti-Catholic sections and books (ie Hebrews 9:14 and Revelation etc.)” [S3P552].

Also, Vaticanus: “… agrees essentially with Origen’s Hexapla, omitting the deity of Christ frequently …” [S3P552].

Origen would be quite surprised to know he omitted the deity of Christ.

In summary, history records that:

“… Vaticanus was available to the King James translators but they didn’t use it because they knew it was unreliable” [S5P60].

Unfortunately, Johnson will not tell us where they said this. I tried to find it and had no luck.

We’ll continue next time.

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.2

How readable is the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This time, I’m not quoting everything. There is information that is just bit by bit that I find tedious. This is not hiding anything. I always link to the material here and I recommend you go and read it. Anyway, let’s answer the question of if the material is more readable or not in the KJV.

One persistent advertisement is that new versions are ‘easier to read’. If this is true, it is easily verified.

The Flesch-Kincaid research company has a formula which measures the grade level of a book. The higher the grade level the more education is required. And, the lower the grade level, the less education is required.

The Flesch-Kincaid formula is:

Grade level = (.39) times (the average number of words per sentence) + (11.8) times (the average number of syllables per word) minus (15.59)

From this formula; fewer syllables per word lowers the grade level and/or shorter sentences lowers the grade level. Both make sense.

Now, let’s compare some ‘modern’ versions to the King James Bible.

In her excellent book “New Age Bible Versions”, on page 196, G.A. Riplinger gives us the Flesch-Kincaid readability results of various ‘Bibles’. In her first analysis, she compares the average grade level required to read the first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments.

Leaving aside Kiplinger as a source, I have a few concerns here. For one thing, this could work well all things being equal if we use modern language, but what if we don’t? What if we use an ancient book still? For instance, in this case, I went to the metaphysics of Aristotle which I got here.

So what did I get?

(https://archive.org/stream/aristotlesmetaph0001aris/aristotlesmetaph0001aris_djvu.txt) has an average reading ease of about 80.6 of 100. It should be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

There are PhDs who are struggling to understand this work. No. It will not be easily understood by 9 to 10 year olds.

So next I went here to the first part of the Summa of Aquinas dealing with questions of existence. Results?

(https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm) has an average reading ease of about 62.5 of 100. It should be easily understood by 14 to 15 year olds.

Again, PhDs are struggling and debating with this.

I next went to Romeo and Juliet.

That one was deemed too complicated, yet I bet many of us understand that more than we do Aristotle and Aquinas.

How about the transcript of Joe Biden’s inauguration address?

That one got the same rating as Aquinas, which means you would have a harder time understanding that address than you would understanding Aristotle.

Finally, I put in my article on the virgin birth, which I do affirm. The results are it is fitting for 10 to 11 year-olds. There you have it folks. I’m writing material that is slightly harder to understand than Aristotle. Never knew it.

So did Johnson ever bother to check on any of this? You already know the answer. The test itself could be fine, all things being equal, but there are some problems.

There is material on memorization after which Johnson says the following:

READER NOTE: The Word is “The Sword of the Spirit”. When G.A. Riplinger says that: “The memorization of scripture is a necessary self-defense against sin” and that: “simple sentence structure and single syllable words … simplify this task”; I believe she has hit on a very SUBTLE but EXTREMELY important point.

The memorization of scripture REQUIRES repetition. And, it requires hearing the SAME words again and again. When each ‘modern’ version, substitutes different words (so it can ‘sell itself’ as a ‘new’ version), it hinders and confuses the memorization of scripture.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, I suspect He DID NOT have scrolls of scripture with him. Nor do I think He fumbled around with which version to quote back to Satan. The only thing Jesus had was the Word, memorized! Think about it!

The problem is that if you look at the same story in different Gospels, you would find different words being used. Which is it? What you will normally find is the same idea is being expressed. Frankly, unless you’re quoting the words in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, you’re already not using the exact words that were used.

And yes, there were variants in Old Testament manuscripts. What Johnson is doing is treating the text like it’s a magic book. You have to say the words the exact right way or else the effect won’t happen.

Now I will grant that there are many passages I still remember in the KJV. John 3:16 anyone? But I do know I have many other passages memorized and even if I don’t have the exact words, I have the voice that is being used. It’s ironic that in wanting to defend a position he considers orthodox, Johnson really has a view of language that is pagan.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 12.1

What about Martin Luther? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I hope everyone had a good Easter. We’re going to continue what we were doing and that’s looking into this horrid KJV-only publication. (That could be a redundancy.) As always, the source material can be found here.

In the previous chapter, we learned that Erasmus’ Greek New Testament found its way into Bibles of several languages. One of those was the translation, into German, by Martin Luther.

We pick up the history of the Bible in Whittenberg, Germany:

“A major blow to the authority of Rome came in 1517, when a young Catholic priest by the name of Martin Luther nailed his historic 95 theses on the church door in Whittenberg. The nail drove deep into the hearts of truly born-again Christians who had for centuries been laboring under the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church …” [S1P86].

I’m not sure Luther himself would go with this. Luther never wanted to start a new movement and I’m sure he would see there were true Christians in the Roman Catholic Church. He did say that about John Tetzel after all. This is just more of the fundamentalist kind of thinking. I find it hard to think that for however many years one sees this period as going on that there were no true Christians.

History tells us that “… Martin Luther brought in the Protestant Reformation by insisting on the difference between faith and works” [S8P56]. From this … the fires of reformation were kindled” [S1P86]

“Within 35 years after Luther had nailed his theses upon the door of the Cathedral of Whittenberg, and launched his attacks upon the errors and corrupt practices of Rome, the Protestant Reformation was thoroughly established. The great contributing factor to this spiritual upheaval was the translation by Luther of the Greek New Testament of Erasmus into German” [S1P232].

“The most vital and immovable weapon in Luther’s arsenal came in the form of the New Testament of 1522. This put the pure words … back into the hands of ‘Bible starved’ Christians. The reformation ran wild across the continent, fueled by this faithful translation. Rome at this point was totally helpless to stop it” [S1P86-87].

This came later and the Reformation was already well underway. Luther translated the Bible so the common person could read it in their language. It’s not that Luther necessarily saw the text of the Bible used at the time as corrupt.

“The medieval Papacy awakened from its superstitious lethargy to see that in one-third of a century, the Reformation had carried away two-thirds of Europe. Germany, England, the Scandinavian countries, Holland, and Switzerland had become Protestant. France, Poland, Bavaria, Austria, and Belgium were swinging that way” [S1P232].

And so: “… Constantinople fell in 1453, … Europe awoke as from the dead … Columbus discovered America. Erasmus printed the Greek New Testament. Luther assailed the corruptions of the … church. Revival of learning and the Reformation followed swiftly” [S2P217].

If I would disagree with any part of this, it would be the revival of learning. Learning never stopped in the so-called Dark Ages. It’s not a shock that Johnson is not aware of this.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 11.1

When did the so-called Dark Ages end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we saw Johnson continuing the myth about the Dark Ages. Nothing was said about the advancement of society in that time. All that we saw was about the fall of the Roman Empire which was somehow a bad thing even though the Roman Empire was supposedly corrupt. Anyway, the source material is here.

As you remember from the last chapter, the Papacy cut off Western Europe from Greek literature. Also, the Papacy substituted Jerome’s corrupted Bible for God’s true Bible. This brought on the ‘Dark Ages’.

I have no reason to associate that with 476 A.D. That was the year that the Roman Empire was said to have been officially defeated in the West. Don’t expect any consistency from Johnson on this end. It’s not an easy trait for people who are KJV-only to possess, which is a good reason to not be KJV-only.

For almost 1,000 years ( 476 A.D. – 1453 A.D. ), the world went through a time of spiritual darkness.

Which is only an assertion. There was much education going on in this time and for people who want to say that God’s Word will not be removed, they seem to think He abandoned His people for 1,000 years during this time. Again, consistency is not a strong point.

Also, in the last chapter we learned that: “spiritual darkness and apostasy … begin with false notions concerning faith” [S8P55] and “reformation and revival … require the correction of these errors …” [S8P55].

We learned nothing of the sort. We only saw it asserted. What would have been helpful would have been some actual quotations from the time or indications that this is what was going on. Instead, we just have someone thinking that because they are a “man of God” that what they say should be taken with full authority.

God moved in a mighty way and the ‘Dark Ages’ ended in 1453. Then, 1 year later in 1454, printing with movable type was invented.

No sources are given for this. I have seen claims that something like this was already in Asian societies in the 11th century and I see nothing saying Gutenberg finished his project in this time. Of course, the printing press was a major gift to the world and we’re all the better for it, but I would like to see Johnson verify his claims instead of just assert them.

Movable type printing, along with revival, spread God’s Word quickly.

I do not doubt that it greatly helped the Bible. If there was no printing press, it is doubtful the Reformation would have taken place then since it allowed the reprinting and publishing of the 95 theses of Martin Luther. Greater access to knowledge can be a good thing, but that also needs the character to go with it.

We pick up our study of the Bible, during this God given revival, which history has named: ‘The Reformation’.

I do support the Reformation, but at the same time it was sad that it needed to happen. However, that does not mean all was darkness before. It’s a shame Johnson leaves that out. We’ll see if he does any better as we go on, though I doubt it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 10.1

What about the Dark Ages? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Jeff Johnson keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Today, we’re going to be talking about the Dark Ages. Never mind that this is a name that comes from much more secular thinkers and is supposed to be in contrast to the enlightenment, Johnson goes with it. The source material can be found here.

Beginning around 476 A.D., the world entered ‘The Dark Ages’. This lasted almost 1,000 years.

Now consider me confused here. The year is chosen because this is seen as when the Roman Empire fell, yet this is supposedly the empire of Constantine that Johnson has been condemning. So why is it that this is the Dark Ages in Johnson’s view? Wouldn’t the fall of a wicked empire be a good thing?

In this short chapter, we will explore the cause of ‘Dark Ages’.

When we last left the history of the Bible, the Catholic Church hired Jerome to make a corrupted Latin Bible. The purpose was to go up against the true Latin Bible ( the Italic Bible ) of the early Italian Church.

I know we live in a society where conspiracy theories are often becoming true, but this one we have been waiting for for well over 1,500 years now….

Jerome completed his corruption in 380 A.D., and the Catholic Church adopted Jerome’s corrupted Bible as their standard. In addition to Jerome’s Latin Bible, the Papacy adopted another measure to: “… keep Europe under its domination” [S2P216]. We find out that

“… the Papacy was against the flow of Greek language and literature to Western Europe. All the treasures of the classical past were held back in the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. For nearly one thousand years, the western part of Europe was a stranger to the Greek tongue” [S2P216]. “The West became exclusively Latin, as well as estranged from the East; with local exceptions … the use and knowledge of the Greek language died out in Western Europe” [S2P216].

It is assumed that this happened due to evil intent. Why should we think that? It’s my understanding that the Crusades helped to recover this, but if this knowledge was so horrible, why was it accepted when it returned? Aquinas is even the main theologian of the RCC and he was thoroughly Aristotelian.

“When the use and knowledge of Greek died out in Western Europe, all the valuable Greek records, history, archaeology, literature, and science remained untranslated and unavailable to Western energies. No wonder, then, that this opposition to using the achievements of the past brought on the Dark Ages (476 A.D. to 1453 A.D.)” [S2P216].

The people of this time did not avoid the past. They were constantly doing scientific experiments and making advancements. This was actually a time of great education.

Thus, the people were denied access to valuable Greek records. And they were fed Jerome’s corrupted Bible.

So, during this 1,000 year timeframe, the sun came up every day, just like it had since creation. The Dark Ages DID NOT refer to a ‘celestial problem’. No, the Dark Ages referred to a ‘spiritual problem’.

Okay. So when the evil Roman Empire fell, we had a spiritual problem? I thought Constantine was the problem. Now we’re told when his empire is removed, that is the problem. I suppose the problem is I expect Johnson to be consistent.

The Church needs to learn a lesson from the ‘Dark Ages’. Edward F. Hills tells us the bottom line:

“From the study of the Bible and Church history two conclusions may be safely drawn. First, spiritual darkness and apostasy ALWAYS begin with false notions concerning faith. Second, reformation and revival ALWAYS REQUIRE the correction of these errors …” [S8P55].

I don’t doubt that there were false notions, but I do doubt that this was because Jerome’s Bible was corrupt. Was it a perfect translation? No. None is, but that is far from saying it was a heretical one.

At any rate, it would serve Johnson well to actually read real material about the Dark Ages instead of just the people who agree with him.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.2

How did we get the Old Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We saw yesterday a statement that I could not describe as anything less than blasphemous. Today, Johnson is going to tell us some about textual transmission. (Perhaps if you wanted to write about Bible translation this would have been a better place to start.) The link can be found here.

“The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

“The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts” [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

“The original Hebrew manuscripts were not ‘pointed’, that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text” [S15P7].

Okay. Nothing really objectionable so far.

This oral tradition continued until:

“… a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds” [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the ‘written tradition’.

The Masoretes did a valuable service, but we should not ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Those were people trying to be faithful to the text as well.

In Alfred Levell’s book “The Old Is Better”; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

“For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ … After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies” [S13P17].

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

“… many complicated safeguards … such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book” [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

“The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the ‘Oracles of God’. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung … In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther – the whole was rejected” [S2P112-113]

Fuller is at least a scholar, but he wrote this book back in 1970 and we have learned more sense then. He is also another KJV-onlyist. Still, there is really nothing wrong with this statement.

In his book “God Wrote Only One Bible”, Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

“In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing ‘Jehovah’ lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original” [S4P94-95].

I can find nothing on Ray, but once again, Johnson is only echoing his own side. He has thus far not studied anyone on something as simple as textual transmission except those who agree with him.

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

“… the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text” [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

“… many secondary witnesses … including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts” [S18P153].

Again, still no problem.

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

“The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God … The Old Testament was our Lord’s only study book …. Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New” [S2P113-114].

In the booklet “God’s Inspired Preserved Bible” the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

“As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ’s words were taken directly from the Old Testament” [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

I have no problem with using the Masoretic text, but I have no desire to throw out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We shall continue next time with the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-3

Did all things come by or through Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That’s just one question we’re going to discuss. There isn’t much more to section 2. Anyway, here‘s where you can find the original so you can know I’m quoting properly. Let’s begin.

Matt 18:11

KJV: “For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost.”

NKJV: “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

Comment: The NJKV says Jesus Christ “has come” to save that

which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The NKJV implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone TODAY can be saved by Jesus. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. There are NUMEROUS places where the NKJV changes the verb tense. These types of NKJV corruptions are very subtle.

I have looked over this and all I can say is I am convinced that this is just more nitpicking. I have read this verse several times and even reading it now, I have never at all thought that. One rule of reading is you try to give the principle of charity and put what you are reading in the best light possible. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’re a KJV-onlyist.

Matt 20:20

KJV: “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, WORSHIPPING him …”

NKJV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down …”

COMMENT: Kneeling down is not even close to ‘worship’.

Kneeling down would be a regular part of worship in the culture as showing honor. However, this is once again “The NKJV is different so therefore wrong.” I have no reason to think that the mother of James and John understood the deity of Christ. Kneeling makes more sense.

John 1:3

KJV: “All things were made BY Him …”

NKJV: “All things were made through Him …”

COMMENT: ‘BY‘ and through are totally different. Think about it.

Yes. They are. Also, by his more accurate. Jesus is compared to wisdom in the NT and in the Proverbs and intertestamental literature, Wisdom was the means by which God made the world. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

John 4:24

KJV: “God is A Spirit …”

NKJV: “God is Spirit …”

COMMENT: For the NKJV to say: “God is spirit” is to infer that ALL spirits are God. Not true. We know there are evil spirits. And we know in God there is NO evil. Thus the KJV is correct: God is ‘A‘ spirit.

One could just as well say saying God is a spirit is putting God as one among many and in the class of spirits, but that wouldn’t be a charitable reading. However, I have no reason to think that saying God is Spirit even begin to imply (Not infer. Infer is what the person responding does.) that all spirits are God. You might as well say “God is good” implies that all that is good is God.

Acts 12:4

KJV: “… after Easter …”

NKJV: “… after Passover”

Seriously, that’s all that is said here. However, the NKJV is correct. There would have been no word for Easter at this point nor is there any reason to think that the Jews would have gathered together to celebrate “Easter.” Passover is the more accurate translation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-2

Does God know good and evil? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The more and more I go through this online book, the more I really don’t understand how someone can hold to this position. Then again, there are internet atheists who hold that Jesus never existed. Anyway, again, the source material is here.

So let’s begin.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye at thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.”

NKJV: “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil.”

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not

evil! Think about the difference.

So apparently, saying that you know good and evil is the same as saying you are evil. Not sure how that follows. One could say it depends on the usage of the word “know” which can mean something like that, but let’s also remember that this is the devil and geez, would it be so awful if in the account the devil told something that wasn’t true?

Besides, look at the KJV interpretation. Is this upholding polytheism?

Gen. 22:8

KJV: “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering …”

NKJV: “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.

Comment: It is true, as the NKJV says, that God did provide FOR himself a sacrifice. However, that is only part of the story. The NKJV totally misses the deeper, and more amazing truth: GOD WAS the sacrifice! The KJV wording is perfect: “God will provide HIMSELF” (in the form of his son Jesus Christ) as the sacrifice.

Of rather the NKJV is being accurate in its translation. Also, saying God will provide himself a lamb doesn’t mean that God will be the lamb. That’s an added step of interpretation. I can talk to my folks in the evening and say I can provide a meal for myself. It doesn’t mean I’m a cannibal who is going to eat myself.

1 Ki.10:28

KJV: “and LINEN yarn: the king’s merchants received the LINEN yarn at a price.”

NKJV: “and Keveh; the king’s merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price.”

Comment: I know what linen is, but what is Keveh?

“One of these requires that I look at the text and study it! One of them just tells me something that I already know something about! That last one must be true then!”

It’s really embarrassing that this kind of thing is counted as an argument.

Looking up the verse, it seems quite difficult to translate as I don’t see anything that reads linen. There is a place called Keveh however and so the text is saying that Solomon was buying from this place.

Dan. 3:25

KJV: “… and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD.”

NKJV: (footnote) “or a son of the gods”

COMMENT: See comments in chapter 1 of this report. There is

a big difference between “THE SON OF GOD” and a son of ‘plural’ gods!

This was covered in an earlier post.

By the way, when the devil spoke, it was okay that he said gods, but not okay to say God. Here, it’s the opposite.

Zech 11:17

KJV: “Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!

NKJV: “Woe to the worthless shepherd, who leaves the flock”

The word is best translated as worthless, though sometimes it does mean idol. However, idol in this context makes no sense. Now if you meant “idle”, that could make sense. The NKJV has this right. It’s a worthless shepherd. There is no commentary here so how is this an argument? It’s just saying the NKJV is wrong since it’s different, when it makes more sense. What is an idol shepherd after all?

Matt. 2:4

KJV: “… he (King Herod) DEMANDED of them where Christ should be born.”

NKJV: “… he inquired of them where Christ was to be born.”

COMMENT: King Herod, furious over the arrival of Jesus, (and

wanting to do away with Him) did not inquire where Christ should be born, he DEMANDED to know!

So the argument that Herod demanded to know is that….he demanded to know. KJV-onlyists are quite good at circular reasoning.

The word more often is best translated as inquire. There are times that it could mean demand, but without further historical evidence, there’s no way to tell what King Herod did. It would fit his character if he did demand, but he could also be wanting to know without giving away the game so he could fool the wise men.

So as I said, this section is a disaster just like the first. We’ll continue next week, Lord willing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

%d bloggers like this: