Tag: King James Version

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 13.1

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

Tyndale is the one who gave us the word “beautiful.” It’s hard to say something negative about a guy like that. He was a devout Christian, but will a KJV-only work get this right? The source material is here.

Throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has ‘stonewalled’ efforts to give God’s Holy Word to the common person.

But a man named Tyndale would champion the cause of the common man.

I don’t doubt this about Tyndale, and while I know about Wycliffe and his effort with the Bible, at the same time I wonder about the former statement. For one thing, there wasn’t much means to get the Bible into the hands of the common man since printing was costly and timely. Also, few people could read or had need to.

“The first printed English version of the Bible was that of William Tyndale, one of England’s first Protestant martyrs” [S12P214]. “The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason Tyndale translated it into English” [S2P239].

Tyndale was born: “… in the county of Gloucester near the Welsh border, about 1484” [S9P5]. “Tyndale entered Magdalen Hall at Oxford at an early age, completing his graduate work there. Further studies were done in Cambridge, which was also a center for reform. Many of the reformation martyrs were from Cambridge” [S9P5] Tyndale: “… went from Oxford to Cambridge to learn Greek under Erasmus, who was teaching there from 1510 to 1514” [S12P214].

Tyndale was: “… completely at home in eight languages, French, Hebrew, Greek, German, Spanish, Dutch, Latin and in his own tongue. He could speak any one of the seven as well as his mother tongue. He translated all of the New Testament and part of the Old, from the Greek or Hebrew, into English. His English was so perfect that the King James translators used 85% of his translation without changing a word. That was a miracle, because those scholars naturally would wish to use their own way of translating, but instead gave Tyndale’s choice of words and phrases the preference” [S10P4].

If the Tyndale was 85% word-for-word, what was the problem with the other 15%? If nothing serious, why a new Bible like the KJV? (Remember, at one time the KJV was the new Bible on the scene.)

In a dispute with a learned man, who put the Pope’s laws above God’s laws, Tyndale said: “If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scripture than thou …” [S2P229].

For this, Tyndale: “… was called before a council to answer charges of heresy” [S9P5].

“From that moment … his life was one of continual sacrifice and persecution” [S2P229].

“About 1520 he became attached to the doctrines of the Reformation and conceived the idea of translating the Scriptures into English” [S12P214].

To find a place to translate the Bible, Tyndale went to see Bishop Tonstall. The purpose was to:

“… ask for a place for his employ … The Bishop had no room for him. It had been decreed at the Council of Constance in 1417, that the Scriptures were NOT to be translated into the vernacular … Tyndale wrote that … there was not only no room in the Bishop’s palace to translate the Bible, but not in all of England” [S9P5].

So far I don’t really have a problem with this, but it would be good to see real historians cited or actually Tyndale himself.

Unable to translate the Bible in England, Tyndale:

“… set out for the Continent in the spring of 1524 and seems to have visited Hamburg and Wittenberg. In that same year (probably at Wittenberg) he translated the New Testament from Greek into English for dissemination in his native land. It is estimated that 18,000 copies of this version were printed on the Continent of Europe between 1525 and 1528 and shipped secretly to England. After this Tyndale continued to live on the Continent as a fugitive, constantly evading the efforts of the English authorities to have him tracked down and arrested. But in spite of this ever present danger his literary activity was remarkable. In 1530-31 he published portions of the Old Testament which he had translated from the Hebrew and in 1534 a revision both of this translation and also of his New Testament. In this same year he left his place of concealment and settled in Antwerp, evidently under the impression that the progress of the Reformation in England had made this move a safe one. In so thinking, however, he wasmistaken. Betrayed by a friend, he was imprisoned in 1535 and executed the following year. According to Foxe, his dying prayer was this: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes” [S12P214]. “Henry VIII had banned all Bibles printed in English in his realm. Eleven months after Tyndale’s death Henry gave the order to print the Bible in English …” [S10P5].

As to translating from Greek into English (vs from Latin into English) Tyndale said:

“The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate into the English, word for word: when thou must seek a compass in the Latin” [S6P86].

And where did Tyndale get the Greek text that he used for his English translation?

His text: “… came from the pure Greek text of Erasmus” [S2P222].

Could be, but at the same time, this doesn’t mean that Greek text is necessarily the best text.

As to the quality of his English translation, Tyndale said:

“I call God to record, against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus Christ to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience, nor would to this day, if all that is in the earth-whether it be honour, pleasure, or riches-might be given me” [S6P85].

And so: “William Tyndale translated from the original Greek into English … For this he was imprisoned in 1535 for about 18 months, afterwards strangled and burnt at the stake in October, 1536” [S9P4-5]. “His great offense was that he had translated the Scriptures into English and was making copies available against the wishes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy” [S2P3].

“But his life’s work had been completed. He had laid securely the foundations of the English Bible” [S12P214].

So not much to comment on here, and that’s okay. We’ll continue next time when we get a more contrary position.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 11.2

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

So we are back again on this today talking about this topic. So far, it has been a massive train wreck with empty assertions and one-sided argumentation. Let’s see if Johnson does any better. The source can be found here.

One person who changed the world, during the reformation, was Erasmus. Erasmus was a “… giant intellect and scholar …” [S2P225]. And, Erasmus’ name: “… was a household word all over the known world …” [S10P4].

History records that:

“Probably the most important figure in the renaissance of learning and religion was Erasmus. He traveled around Europe’s great learning centers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome and others. He left his mark in history as the editor of the first published Greek New Testament printed in 1516” [S9P4].

Endowed by God: “… with a mind that could do ten hours work in one, Erasmus, during his mature years … was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing, and publishing. Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day” [S2P225].

“… Erasmus looked for manuscripts … during his travels and … he borrowed them from everyone he could” [S8P193]. “There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus examined, and he did; but he used only a few” [S2P226].

With this, I don’t really disagree. Erasmus certainly was a very intellectual figure and a great mind. History does remember him and it should for good reason.

So why did Erasmus use only a few manuscripts, when he had personal access to hundreds of them? This question is answered consistently from author to author. For instance:

David Otis Fuller says: “The vast majority of manuscripts are practically all the Received Text” [S2P226].

And Barry Burton says: “The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down thru the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek ‘Textus Receptus’. This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation KNEW to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible)” [S5P59-60].

Even ENEMIES of the Traditional Majority Text concede that: “The manuscripts Erasmus used, differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts …” [S2P227].

Erasmus examined every manuscript he could find and he found agreement among them. From the massive collection of manuscripts, Erasmus selected a sample to use. We find out that:

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was produced from: “… nine manuscripts chosen from a very large mass” [S10P4].\

Across the board apparently means that you go and find people who are KJV-onlyists and cite them only. That sure makes a convincing case. Note that the case could be entirely right, but if you want to convince people, you need to do more than cite people who already agree with your conclusion.

So these manuscripts were in agreement; but what about their quality?

David Otis Fuller says (of Erasmus’ text):

“Moreover the text he chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, and … it constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God’s providence” [S2P227].

Again, one source and that being a KJV-onlyist. This is not saying that the claim is wrong. It is saying that Johnson has not made a good case for it.

So, not only did these manuscripts agree with each other, but they had an excellent history.

Now, did Erasmus’ great knowledge and detailed Godly effort result in a trouble free life? Hardly! We discover that:

“It is customary even today with those who are bitter against the pure teachings of the Received Text, to sneer at Erasmus. No perversion of the facts is too great to belittle his work” [S2P225].

It would be nice to see such a case. I am not denying that they exist, but all Johnson gives is an assertion.

Thus, the greatest mind of that day had enemies. For example, in 1521, Erasmus said:

“I did my best with the New Testament but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have found 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them” [S2P226].

Could be so, but then who in church history has not had enemies?

“… I required particulars and could not have them …” I think that says it all.

We see Erasmus taking a stand for God’s Word. We see him trying to understand the comments of his detractors, in an effort to do the best possible work; yet there were never any ‘facts’ to discuss.

I am puzzled by this idea of never any facts to discuss. It looks like Erasmus was tired of having to discuss the claims. I just am left wondering what Johnson is even talking about.

The quote above gives insight into the true ‘problem’. The people who sneered at the greatest mind of their day weren’t actually against Erasmus; they were against God’s Holy Word. They were against the Traditional Majority Text.

Obviously. That had to be it. It couldn’t be they had their concerns about the text being handed down. They just didn’t want a particular text handed down. Got it.

And, although some tried to belittle his work, history is very clear about Erasmus’ personal worth and character:

“… while he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price; the Emperor of Germany did the same. The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience. In fact, had he been so minded, he perhaps could have made himself Pope. France and Spain sought him to be a dweller in their realm; while Holland prepared to claim him as her most distinguished citizen” [S2P225-226].

And so, Erasmus went on with his work …

Again, this could all be true, but Johnson still has the problem that he only cites people who agree with him.

“Book after book came from his hand. Faster and faster came the demands for his publications. But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue … the world … read the pure story of the gospels. The effect was marvelous. At once, all recognized the great value of his work which for over four hundred years (1516 to 1930) was to hold the dominant place in the era of Bibles. Translation after translation has been taken from it, such as the German, and the English, and others [S2P226].

Thus: “The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer this text to the modern printed page” [S8P196].

Finally, the ‘Dark Ages’ passed:

Nothing like creating your own terms and then shaping the data to fit that. It wasn’t the rise of the printing press and the idea of questioning Rome. Nope. It was that we finally had the precursor to the KJV!

“When the 1,000 years had gone by, strains of new gladness were heard. Gradually these grew in crescendo until the whole choir of voices broke forth as Erasmus presented his first Greek New Testament at the feet of Europe. Then followed a full century of the greatest scholars of language and literature the world ever saw” [S2P225].

Yet most of us know that while there were good things, as always, it was not just good things. There were numerous problems that followed, but Johnson won’t cover that. He’s only interested in one side of the story.

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

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 7.2

Who is to blame in church history? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. You talk about church history and where things went wrong and sooner or later, we all knew it would come to this place. Yep. It’s church history’s favorite whipping boy, Constantine. As usual, the source material is here.

After Origin, “The next step in corrupting the Bible was taken in the time of Constantine.” [S7P8].

In 331 A.D. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he sought to: “… unite Christianity with pagan Rome” [S2P195]. He regarded himself as: “… the director and guardian of … [the] world church” [S2P195]. “Constantine, the wolf of Paganism, openly assumed the sheep’s clothing of the Christian religion” [S4P19]. “He accepted the Christian faith for political purposes and ordered a Bible that would appeal to the masses. Eusebius, a follower of Origin, was chosen for this task. This was the beginning of the Arian controversy concerning the Deity of our Lord and the spirit of ecumenism” [S7P8].

Of course, none of this actually cites Constantine himself or any quotes from the time. It’s too easy to beat up on Constantine. I recommend listening to my interview with Peter Leithart on his book Defending Constantine.

At this point, let’s pause for some clarification and definition:

A) The Arian controversy is the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being. i.e. that Jesus is: “the eldest and highest of creatures, rather than God manifest in the flesh” [S3P535]. The ramification is that Christ is fallen, is less than God, and is not equal to God. This is heresy.

I don’t think it entails Christ is fallen if it means Christ is a sinful creature, but yes, we all agree that Arianism is heresy.

B) Ecumenism is the belief in a one world church where I’m OK, your OK, we’re all OK. The ramification here is that no one is a sinner. Therefore, we do not need to be saved. This is NOT scriptural. This is a big lie. ( Note: Ecumenism is happening today)

This is one definition of it and one that I don’t think most people would speak of by it. When I consider myself ecumenical, it means I can worship freely at any church that holds to orthodox Christian doctrine. It also includes in my eyes Catholics and Orthodox.

The truth is: “The Bible God wrote through holy men, does not teach ecumenicalism, i.e. that all religious systems should be united into one world-wide fellowship. Instead the Word of God teaches fellowship-separation between true believers and false professors” [S4P113].

Okay…..

Now, back to the history of the Bible. Eusebius has just been chosen by the so called ‘Christian’ Emperor Constantine to produce a corrupted Bible ‘for the masses’. From historical records we know that:

Oh yes. Constantine definitely asked Eusebius to corrupt the Bible and Eusebius definitely did that. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

“Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. He had just edited the fifth column of the ‘Hexapla’ which was Origin’s Bible. Constantine chose this, and asked Eusebius to prepare 50 copies for him … The Emperor Constantine gave orders that … this edition should be used in the Churches” [S4P18-19].

Odd that Origen’s name is spelled differently in this paragraph. The Hexapla was not so much a Bible as it was a project to deal with textual variants. Left out is that Bibles were printed because Diocletian had destroyed so many in his persecution before.

“Together Constantine and Eusebius called for religious toleration, which is invariably followed by amalgamation. To placate both Christian and heathen, they took a ‘middle of the road position’ regarding the deity of Christ. Consequently … the doctrine that Jesus was ‘the eldest and highest of creatures’, rather than ‘God manifest in the flesh’, was adopted …” [S3P535]. And: “… the amalgamation of heathen and Christian doctrine – smoothing out differences thereby allowing for unity – was perfect for Constantine’s purposes” [S3P535].

The religious toleration was for Christians. The Edict of Milan made Christianity a legal religion. True, Constantine wanted Arius back in the church.

Thus, Eusebius carried on Origin’s work in corrupting the scriptures. And, as it turns out:

“Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origin …” [S2P3].

Variations such as?……

Looking back at this point in history, G.A Riplinger makes an interesting observation. In her book “New Age Bible Versions” she says:

“Corrupt bibles, with their loose doctrine, seem to create loose living in A.D. 333 and in the 1990’s” [S3P536].

That’s something to think about.

Except there has not been any demonstration of loose living by Christians at the time. If anything, a few decades after Constantine Julian the Apostate emperor would say that Christians took care of not just their own, but also of the pagans. Instead, we have an assertion from someone who doesn’t study history and making slanderous remarks about those who came before them. These are the people who are KJV-only.

That’s something to think about.

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

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 6.1

What about the Italic Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going forward in the next step in Bible translation. It’s not a shock that Johnson punts to the devil here to make his case. As always, the original can be found here.

At the same time as the Syrian translation, but in another part of the world; the common language of Italy, France, and Great Britain was not Syrian, but Latin. Thus, for these countries, a Bible was needed in Latin. Therefore, the original Greek Vulgate (The Traditional Majority Text) was translated from Greek into Latin. This is believed to have occurred no later than 157 A.D.

“One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy …” [S4P98]. The Waldenses were: “lineal descendents of the Italic Church” [S4P98-99]. More will be said of the Waldenses later on, but as for the Italic Church suffice it to say that:

This part is a bit confusing. Is he saying one of these Bibles was the first for a group that came about 1,000 years later? It sounds odd really to make a case like that.

“Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity” [S4P98].

The only thing I can find about Allix other than Wiki sources is here. All we have here though is an assertion. No manuscript evidence is given of this. If Allix is also part of the Italic Church it wouldn’t be much of a shock to hear this said.

Augustine, speaking of the Latin Bibles, said: “Now among translations themselves the Italian (Old Itala) is to be preferred to others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression” [S2P208].

I did a search for this quote and I cannot find it which is problematic. Without finding it, it’s hard to know if it is a real quote or not. If it is, I have no idea what the context is.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, traced the history of the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to the Waldenses of the Italic Church. He says the Traditional Majority Text was:

“… adopted into the version that prevailed in the Latin Church” [S4P99].

This means:

“… the basis for the King James Bible has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century” [S4P99].

Once again, the problem is that I cannot find who Dr. Nolan is exactly. I tried looking for the quotes, but to no avail. Either way, most of us would have no problem saying the KJV was in line with early manuscripts. No one is arguing that the KJV is a bad translation, but that does not mean it is perfect or even the best.

This statement about the Italic Bible of 157 A.D., along with the statement about the Syrian Peshitta Bible of 150 A.D., both date the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ with the earliest Church manuscripts.

For terminology sake we will call this Latin Bible the ‘Old Latin’. And, as history shows, it’s this ‘Old Latin’ Bible which agrees with the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ used in the King James Bible.

This Old Latin Bible saw widespread use. In his book: “An Understandable History of the Bible”, Reverend Gipp says:

“The true gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation …” [S1P82].

He goes on to say that:

“The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches … throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term ‘Vulgate’ as a name. Vulgate … which is Latin for common” [S1P67].

Even if we grant all of this, so what? None of this argues that the text of the KJV is perfect in every way.

 

S A T A N  I S  N O T  F A R  B E H I N D

In the Garden of Eden, after God spoke with Adam, Satan came by to offer his own translation!

It seems to follow; that whenever God makes His original, it’s not long before Satan comes by with a counterfeit.

Satan will offer a counterfeit to God’s original Greek Bible as well as a counterfeit to God’s original ‘Old Latin’ Bible, and on and on.

Which ultimately begs the question. Johnson has provided no evidence of the devil corrupting texts and it seems odd that KJV-onlyists keep insisting God can keep His word pure, but apparently, it can also be easily corrupted.

As David Fuller points out in his book “Which Bible?”: “From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault on God’s Son and God’s Word” [S2P4].

Well since from the beginning, it wasn’t known that there was a second person of the Trinity or that God was even triune nor was there written texts of Scripture then….

The following quote, referring to Christ’s victory at Calvary, summarizes Satan’s actions against God’s Bible:

“Vanquished by The Word Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against The Word written” [S2P96].

The devil must have been awfully bored until 1611 to have no pure and perfect word to go after. Not only that, I find capitalizing word in the second sentence to be problematic. This puts Jesus and the Bible on an equal level.

We will continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.3

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

So today, we’re going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

“The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

“The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament” [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don’t really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell’s book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don’t know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

“John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom” [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the ‘Majority Text’. It has also been referred to as the ‘Traditional Text’ and it is also called ‘The Textus Receptus’.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name ‘Textus Receptus’ because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

“Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text” [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the ‘Majority Text’, the ‘Traditional Text’, the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the ‘Received Text’. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ to describe the substitute text used in ‘modern’ versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let’s trace the history of both the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ and the ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We’ll continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.1

How bad can it get? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So yesterday, I started looking ahead at what was coming today in our look at this work. I had heard Johnson use the term blasphemy, but apparently, he was blind to the idea that he would commit it himself. I have tried to be as charitable as I can, but there is no other way I can describe it as that. At any rate, the source material can be found here and we’ll be looking at the first part of chapter 4.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Okay. Hard to argue with Scripture. This is a great introduction to creation anyway. Let’s see where he goes.

When the Word was written down, the Word was then called ‘Scripture’.

……………..

Oh my…..

I keep wanting to think he did not say this. I mean, I have seen other people say this, but for someone to say this and publish it on a website? Someone who is accusing others of blasphemy and heresy at every point? At this point, no one should take seriously anything Johnson says about interpreting Scripture.

Johnson has taken a passage of Scripture about Jesus Christ and made it about the King James Bible instead. I want to be charitable in my reading, but I can’t see any way around this. If someone can, I am open to it, but this just shows the idolatry of the movement.

Put in the Bible for the word “Word” in the prologue of John and it doesn’t make sense. This is more akin to a Muslim view of Scripture than a Christian view. This is treating Scripture as if it was involved in the creation account and is a person.

And Robert Breaker shares this as an excellent work? Says a lot about him too.

The original recordings of Scripture are called ‘autographs’. Animal skins and papyrus (paper) were used for these first autographs. Unfortunately, because of decay, these original autographs no longer exist. What does remain are copies, made by scribes, of these original autographs. These scribal copies are called ‘manuscripts’.

Okay. Nothing objectionable here at least.

The manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew and the manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. We do not have many Old Testament manuscripts. But, we have more than 5,000 New Testament manuscripts.

The number could be a bit outdated depending on when this was written. Unfortunately, I cannot find such a date.

From these manuscripts variant readings are analyzed and an agreed upon master ‘text’ is derived. From the agreed upon ‘master text’ a Bible can then be translated into the desired language.

The text is constantly updated based on new manuscripts being found, but we’ll accept this for now.

Thus our Bible was first the Word of God, then an original ‘autograph’, then a scribal copy ‘manuscript’, then an agreed upon ‘master text’, then an English Bible.

It seems a bit more complicated than that and geez, why favor the English language? The Bible is only the Bible if written in English? Something else I found myself pondering is there are dead languages now that we read, but no one really speaks. What happens if in the future English becomes one of those? Do we suddenly lose the Bible?

If any KJV-onlyists want to answer, I welcome it.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2.2.2

Does the Living Bible hold up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re now returning again to this. I started this series and even though it’s painful to see such bad argumentation as is common from KJV-Onlyists, I intend to see it through to the end. As always, the source material is here.

Job 3:26

KJV: “I WAS NOT IN SAFETY. NEITHER HAD I REST, NEITHER WAS I QUIET: YET TROUBLE CAME.”

LB: “I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down.”

In this case, I again prefer the KJV. I don’t see any basis for fat in the text. All the words seem to refer to having rest. Lazy is understandable since if Job is saying he didn’t have rest, it would mean he was busy.

Psalm 34:20

KJV: “HE KEEPETH ALL HIS BONES: NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN.”

LB: “God even protects him from accidents.”

COMMENT: There are NO ACCIDENTS with God!

This is an example of how translation is a form of interpretation. This would depend on what you mean by accident. For instance, in the Aristotlean sense, God has no accidents, but other things do have accidents. Is this necessitating that God is in direct control of everything that happens? A hyper-Calvinist would have no problem with that, but what does this mean if one doesn’t hold that theology?

Johnson’s comment raises more questions than it would supposedly answer.

Ezekiel 2:1

KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO ME, SON OF MAN, STAND UPON THY FEET, AND I WILL SPEAK UNTO THEE.”

LB: “And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you.”

COMMENT: In the book of Ezekiel `son of dust’ is used in place of `son of man’. Does the term ‘son of dust’ sound as derogatory to you like as it does to me?

I can see the reason for the Living Bible using this seeing as man comes from the dust. This is true even in the KJV. However, the reason given for the translation being wrong is just dumb. We shouldn’t go with an interpretation because Johnson finds it derogatory? Personally, I find it derogatory to be told I’m a sinner, but sadly, it’s true.

Zech. 2:8

KJV: “HE THAT TOUCHETH YOU TOUCHETH THE APPLE OF HIS EYE.”

LB: “For he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah’s eye.”

The Living Bible is getting at what the text is saying here. Touching refers to harming and saying anyone who harms you harms the one that YHWH loves. It’s not the way I would phrase it, but it does work.

Zech. 13:6

KJV: “AND ONE SHALL SAY UNTO HIM, WHAT ARE THESE WOUNDS IN THINE HANDS? THEN HE SHALL ANSWER, THOSE WITH WHICH I WAS WOUNDED IN THE HOUSE OF MY FRIENDS.”

LB: “And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend.”

COMMENT: The footnote about this verse says: “That this is not a passage referring to Christ is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reasons for his scars.” We wonder how the editor of the LB (Taylor) came to know this.

Yes, boys and girls. If someone else has an interpretation that differs, you are to question how they got to it. If Johnson has an interpretation of a text, shut up and get in line! A man of God has spoken! Taylor likely just studied the text and looked at the context and determined what was going on. He could be right, or he could be wrong, but just saying “I don’t know how he concludes this!” is not an argument.

KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THIS KIND CAN COME FORTH BY NOTHING, BUT BY PRAYER AND FASTING.”

LB: “Jesus replied, Cases like this require prayer.”

COMMENT: Notice: fasting is left out! Wonder why Satan does not want us to fast?

I wrote about this kind of thinking in a blog post once. These people have a mindset that treats the devil as if he was the counter opposite to God with just as much power to alter reality, as if the devil alters texts regularly. These translations are just going by what the oldest and best manuscripts have and don’t think fasting was originally included. Johnson needs an argument to why the text he prefers is better instead of just saying “SATAN!”

Luke 23:42

KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO JESUS, LORD, REMEMBER ME WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THY KINGDOM.”

LB: “Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

COMMENT: What justification is there to strip Jesus of his title “Lord”?

Probably based on the text used. Either way, the LIving Bible calls Jesus Lord in several other places and the thief does refer to Jesus as someone having a kingdom.

John 1:17

KJV: “FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST.”

LB: “For Moses gave us only the law with its rigid demands and merciless justice while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well.”

COMMENT: The Old Testament contained God’s mercy and grace, too.

Because obviously one verse was supposed to give an entire interpretation of everything in the Old Testament….

Hopefully, next time we come, we can finish off the look at the Living Bible. After that it will be the Amplified.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2-1

Ready for a fast look at Bible verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re reviewing this awful KJV-only book and now we get to a bunch of fast translation differences. We’ll see if any of these have any bearings whatsoever on the text and even if the KJV could be a less than accurate translation. As always, the source material is here. I am also calling this 2-1 to go by chapters lest I get to something labeled part 73 of this series.

Gen 1:21

KJV: “And God created great WHALES …”

NKJV: “So God created great sea creatures …”

COMMENT: There is a difference between sea creatures and whales.

Okay, everyone! Write this down! There is a difference between sea creatures and whales! Believe it or not, those seafood items from the sea that you buy at your grocery store, they’re not whales! I understand. Please take a moment so you can take in the shock.

If anything, the NKJV is better here since you could say with the KJV that God created only the whales. Here, you can say God created all the great sea creatures.

Matt 12:40

KJV: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES’s belly …”

NKJV: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish …”

Plenty of apostasies have been brought about by the fact of a great fish instead of a whale. I will make sure the next time an atheist confronts me on Jonah and the whale to say that it was a great fish instead and watch them melt knowing their opposition has died. Amazing how much these people make out of these issues.

Gen. 2:7

KJV: “… and man became a living SOUL.”

NKJV: “… and man became a living being.”

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that

man is the ONLY creature with a soul. New versions miss this point.

This point is debatable. Some people will say anything that has a nephesh has a soul, which can include higher animals, including my little kitty I hear in the next room. Also, is it really wrong to say that man became a living being? Does anyone base their doctrine of the soul, whether for or against, on this one verse alone?

Gen. 2:13

KJV: “… land of ETHIOPIA.”

NKJV: “… land of Cush.”

Comment: I know where Ethiopia is, but where is Cush?

Oh my. This is just simply an excuse for laziness. First off, if you think you know where Ethiopia is, you probably don’t.

“Bull! I can get out a map of Africa right now and show you where it is!”

Yes, but that isn’t where Ethiopia was in Bible times. Do you know right off where that was? Probably not. Do you not know where Cush was? Okay. Brace yourelf. You might have to actually look it up and study the text!

The horror! The horror!

There are plenty of places we read about in the Bible and we don’t know where they are. The Bible still lists them that way because it is being faithful to what the text says. I really have to say this could be the dumbest argument I have seen in this book so far.

And this is just the start of part 2.

We’ll continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 8

What do we confess? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re back to looking at the trainwreck of KJV-onlyism. This time, we’re going to finish up the first part of this travesty. As always, you can find the source material here.

 

Bible Question #18: What did Jesus say we are to do relative to each other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the answer see: James 5:16. Many ‘modern’ versions say something similar to:

“… confess your sins to one another …”

( Notice this could lead to gossip and further sinning ). But the King James says:

“… confess your FAULTS one to another …”

Notice the 2 different words. The Bible says that ONLY God can forgive sins. We are supposed to confess our SINS to Him. We should confess our FAULTS to one another, but SINS are confessed to God. Faults and sins are entirely different.

Can you see how ‘modern’ versions have led Catholics astray? And, if it has led Catholics astray; couldn’t the same thing happen to us if we, our spouse, our children, or our pastor, uses a ‘modern’ version?

The word here is paraptoma. In all honesty, I was expecting hamartia, but either way, it doesn’t matter. As I looked at the way this word is translated in other places in the KJV, I saw it is still read the same way as sins, such as in the Lord’s prayer about forgiving our trespasses.

Now the problem here is that no one is saying that you confess your sins to others to earn forgiveness, although in some sense you do. If I have wronged a fellow man and I need him to forgive me, I confess to him and he forgives me. He can do that. That doesn’t forgive me before God, but it forgives me before my fellow man.

The verse later on says to pray for one another that you may be healed. Now if I read that like Johnson reads this part, I could say “See? You are to pray for one another to be healed? Only God can heal!”

Not only this, but people in accountability programs will tell you that confessing your sins to one another can be a good practice. These are found in 12-step programs where if someone screws up, they have to go and talk to their sponsor about what they did. That requires humility and is a good deterrent if the person is being honest to not messing up.

I also like how the boogeyman of Catholicism was thrown out there in the end. I am not a Catholic, but they don’t get everything wrong and I personally think a confessional is a good idea. It’s not because a priest forgives you, but because confessing to someone can help mean you don’t carry the burden alone. I have had a number of struggles that I have had greatly lightened because I talked to someone. They didn’t even give me great advice many times. They just listened. That was enough.

Bible Question #19: Do modern ‘versions’ of the Bible have anyother problems?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In the Bible, the New Testament sometimes re-quotes the Old Testament. An example of this is in Mark 1:2

Compare the two Bibles again. In a ‘new version’ it says:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, …”

Compare this to the King James, it says:

“As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ”

Comment: The scripture quoted in Mark 1:2 DID NOT come from Isaiah as stated in these ‘modern’ versions of the Bible. The scripture quoted is from Malachi 3:1 ! Check it out.

Not only do ‘modern’ versions misquote God; they even misquote themselves!

The KJV reading of: “As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ” is correct, because the verse is from Malachi 3:1, and Malachi was a prophet!

So far we have seen all kinds of problems in these ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, ‘more up to date’, etc. etc. versions of the Bible. This leads to the last Bible question:

Folks. This one is easy. Composite quotations were something that were done in ancient literature and when that was done, two quotes would be meshed together and often they would be attributed to the most well-known figure. You can listen to my interview with Seth Ehorn on this one.

Bible Question #20: Why is it important to have the true Word of God (vs. a corruption)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The answer, to our question, is found in 1 Peter 2:2. Please turn there now.

In a ‘modern version’ it says:

“… long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; ”

The King James Bible tells us to:

“… desire the SINCERE milk OF THE WORD, that ye may GROW thereby:”

My comment is that this verse, in ‘new’, ‘modern,’ versions, contains 2 problems:

First, we are to desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD. The purpose is “to grow thereby”. Modern versions leave out “OF THE WORD“. It’s God’s word that feeds us. If, like the modern verse, we leave out “the word” how can we grow? Or, if we get a corrupted translation, how can we grow on ‘junk food’?

Second, contrary to ‘modern’ versions, we DO NOT grow up to salvation. That says salvation is by works! We are saved by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Think about it.

In this chapter, we reviewed the doctrine contained in a “broad” array of ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, versions of the Bible. We compared ‘modern’ doctrine to the KJV. And, we have found significant error.

But, all ‘modern’ versions do not follow this ‘broad’ profile. So, in the next chapter, we will analyze 3 versions of the Bible which need an individual, case by case, analysis.

Again, this comes down to different textual variants. However, one thing I consider is that we have an emphasis in our culture on referring to Scripture as the Word of God and think whenever we see the term “Word” that it refers to the Bible. Hebrews 4:12 is an example. I think it is more likely that this refers to the words spoken to the Israelites in the wilderness. Now this certainly did become part of Scripture, but I don’t think Hebrews is telling us something about Scripture as a whole here.

An ancient reader hearing about sincere milk in this case would easily fill in the missing gaps and the author would realize that. In the same way, saying that it means growing to salvation does not mean works salvation. What it means is more akin to growing in the salvation and being developed into a saved person. If we use the milk analogy, a baby drinks his mother’s milk not so he can grow into a human, but so he can grow as a human.

I wish that this was the most nonsense, but I’ve already looked ahead some and, yep, it doesn’t get any better from here.

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

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest Part 7

Who killed Goliath and other questions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Well, we all know how it works by now. My doing this is a demonstration that some suffering is self-inflicted. Let’s see what we have from this work today to deal with.

Bible Question #15: Who slew Goliath?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is an easy one! Now turn to 2nd Samuel 21:19. Depending on the ‘modern version’ it will say something like:

“… Elhanan … killed Goliath …”

What do you mean Elhanan killed Goliath!? This is wrong you say. Most Sunday school children know that David slew Goliath! Well, you’re right. This is clearly in error.

Look at the same passage in your King James Bible. The Authorized King James Bible has the correct reading which is:

“… Elhanan … slew THE BROTHER OF Goliath …”

Spiritually, as Christians, we are the equivalent of David. Spiritually, Satan is the equivalent of Goliath. Just as David slew Goliath (with a rock), we Christians are “more than conquerors” as we have overcome (slew) Satan by the blood of the lamb (Jesus Christ, the rock!) and by the word of our testimony. Not only are ‘modern versions’ in error; but major doctrinal issues are involved here. Think about it.

To begin with, why do these modern translations sometimes differ? Because they are trying to be faithful to what the text says. Unfortunately, Johnson produces no material on the textual variations or the translating of Hebrew or anything of that sort.

My ministry partner, J.P. Holding, has this to say at Tektonics.

Many conservative commentators, like Archer, have supposed that in the first verse, “Lahmi the brother of” was somehow transformed into “the Bethlehemite”. Alhtough I priorly considered this a suitable textual explanation, I am now persuaded that it requires more explanation (on this, see our response to Human Faces of God, ch. 7). Even so, Callahan’s objections are not sufficient. He objects as follows (here, and now we add, in Secret Origins of the Bible [248]):

  1. First, he says, “Archer is using a method that he would scoff at if it were used by advocates” of the JEDP hypothesis. Indeed? Unless Callahan finds a place where Archer actually does this to an explanation of the same sort advanced by a JEDP theorist, he is merely making an ad hoc accusation.
  2. Second, he says he finds “no particular reason” to accept Archer’s idea “over a more simple and direct one of a later writer trying to resolve an inconsistency.”Well, I do: It has to do with giving ancient documents the benefit of the doubt; it has to do with textual criticism; it has to do with not assuming that ancient people were too foolish to see the obvious. Archer’s explanation is quite within the canons of textual criticism.
  3. Callahan wonders then why both Samuel and Chronicles use the “like a weaver’s beam” in their conclusions. The use of the phrase elsewhere is exactly the sort of thing that would induce an errant scribe to use it elsewhere in an effort to make the text coherent, or make it more memorable in an oral-based society. Callahan’s comment that a scribe would have to both move a portion of the word while leaving it there at the same time is mistaken — this is a perfect description of a known type of textual error called dittography.
  4. Finally, Callahan objects that the explanation contradicts Archer’s earlier assertion that “God kept the authors of the books, and by logical extension the editors of the canon, from error.” Archer may or may not argue this, but it doesn’t matter anyway. We do not believe that God preserved copyists from error. This is not asserted in any doctrinal statement on inerrancy (such as the Chicago Statement).

For the record, here is a summary of Archer’s explanation: 1) a copyist first mistook the sign of the direct object before “Lahmi,” which was ‘-t, for a b-t and got Bethelehemite; 2) the copyist also misread the word for “brother” (‘-h) as the sign of the direct object before “Goliath” and made “Goliath” the object of “killed” instead of “brother” as Chronicles does; 3) the word “weavers” was also misplaced after “Elhanan” to make the name “son of the woods of weavers,” which is quite an unlikely name.

Now you might not find that persuasive entirely, and that’s fine, but the point is that this should show it’s not a clear and simple question. However, looking at the end of what Johnson says, he is taking an interpretation of the original text, as Goliath being Satan and each of us being David, and then insisting that that interpretation is trying to be covered up by the modern versions. (Which, you know, all include the story of David and Goliath so how they’re covering this up is a mystery.) Yet there is given no reason why I should accept the interpretation or think it’s at all what the original writer had in mind.

Bible Question #16: Jesus said that our heavenly Father will forgive us of our sins. However, we are told that; likewise, there is something we must do. Do you remember what it is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let’s turn, in a ‘modern version’ to Mark 11:26. Are you not able to find it? Are the verses in Mark chapter 11 numbered 23, 24, 25 and then 27!? Is verse 26 missing? Well, there is nothing wrong with your eyesight! Verse 26 is not there (or it is in brackets, casting doubt on it). It’s ANOTHER omission.

Now turn to the same verse in your Authorized (King James) Version. The KJV says:

“BUT IF YE DO NOT FORGIVE, NEITHER WILL YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN FORGIVE YOUR TRESPASSES.”

Oh, man! This is important to know! Leaving out verse 26, leaves out an important piece of Christian doctrine. Verse 26 needs to be there! And, that’s why it is properly included in your King James Bible.

The question though is not what Johnson thinks needs to be there, but what is there. Mark often does give shorter versions of what is said and if verse 26 wasn’t in the original manuscripts (And by the way, verse numbers weren’t in the original manuscripts), then whether one thinks it needs to be there or not, faithfulness to the text says to not put it there. I could say “You need to believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to be forgiven needs to be in the text also!”, but if it was not in what Mark wrote, then it will not be included.

By the way, modern translations do include that in passages such as following the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6. Again, an odd way of covering up doctrine.

Bible Question #17: What did Jesus say about religious hypocrisy?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First, let’s take a look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible. What does it say in Matthew 23:14?

Actually, it says nothing! ( The verse is missing in many modern versions ).

For the word of God, turn to the same verse in your King James Bible. What does it say?

“WOE UNTO YOU SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! FOR YE DEVOUR WIDOWS’ HOUSES, AND FOR A PRETENCE MAKE LONG PRAYER: THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION.”

Jesus does not like hypocrisy. Notice how God knows our heart!

Again, this does not show up in the manuscripts that are being used, but here’s something to consider. I just took a few minutes to do a search of the word “hypocrite” in Matthew. It shows up multiple times never in a flattering light. Six of those times are in this very same chapter!

No one reading the chapter in a modern translation would walk away confused about what Jesus thinks about hypocrisy. KJV-Onlyists can condemn the modern versions all they want, but arguments like this are thoroughly dishonest and saw more about KJV-Onlyists than they do about their opponents.

We’ll continue next time.

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