Spiritual Deception in the Highest 21.3

What happened in the process of translation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We are now returning against to Johnson’s *ahem* work. I got this started and I do look forward to finishing it. KJV-onlyism is awfully tedious to deal with. At any rate, the source material, if you can call it that, can be found here.

When the King James Bible was translated from Hebrew/Greek into English each scholar first made his own translation. His work was passed on to other scholars within his own section for review. This work was then passed on to other sections for their review. Lastly, the work went to a final committee to iron out differences. All the work was done in the open.

Assuming for the sake of discussion all this is true, so what? That means that this was the best way to do this? It’s good because this is how it was done before? I want to know why did they do it this way. What was thought by the society at large? Who was funding it? How much of this would be known to the general public.

The work of Westcott and Hort was VERY different:

“The Old Testament committee met together SECRETLY as one body for ten years. The New Testament committee also met together SECRETLY for ten years. All was done in secret” [S4P103-104].

Okay. So what? Perhaps they didn’t want the two committees to influence each other? That’s just off the top of my head, but it’s certainly plausible. Notice something important about this. If you have an explanation that all things being equal doesn’t impugn the person with an evil action and is also plausible, charity says to go with that one first.

“This arrangement left the committee at the mercy of a determined triumvirate to lead the weak and to dominate the rest. All reports indicate that an iron rule of silence was imposed upon these revisers during all that time. The public was kept in suspense all the long, weary ten years. And ONLY after elaborate plans had been laid to throw the Revised Version all at once upon the market to effect a tremendous sale, did the world know what had gone on” [S2P257-258].

I find this confusing. The public was in suspense and yet at the end, they didn’t know what was going on? Those two don’t go together. How can you be at suspense of a group doing work if you don’t know what work is being done or even if there is a group at work? Johnson doesn’t make it clear what is meant here.

Also, who was this triumvirate supposedly? If it was Westcott and Hort, well that makes sense. They’re the ones directly behind this. The final work has their name behind it. They should get to look at it and see if turned out the way they thought it should.

This same tactic, of buying sight unseen, was used to ‘sell’ the RSV Bible on September 30th, 1952. We know that: “Pastors had no opportunity to review the new Bible, yet they were asked to open their churches for a tremendous advertising campaign”

We know this? How? Pastors just suddenly found a new Bible in their pulpit and had to use it? Was there a threat if they didn’t? Who would enforce it?

A KJV-onlyist reading this would likely agree, but only because it agrees with them. If so, Johnson is only convincing people who are already convinced. Color me skeptical still that Johnson is really reporting accurately.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.1

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

So now we’re about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I’m actually going to skip because it’s just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here.

In the last chapter we learned that:

“… The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY … Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN … Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE … The KJV … has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE … the version of 1611 … is probably the BEST version EVER MADE … etc. etc. etc.

Actually, we just heard this asserted. One can say the KJV was a fine work for its time, but that doesn’t mean it will be the same today. If anything, this sounds eerily like the way that Muslims treat the Qur’an.

Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for ‘modern versions’:

… the King James Bible is too hard to understand … its words are archaic … people don’t understand it … it has thee’s and thou’s …. today’s Christian needs is a ‘more readable’ version … etc. etc.

There is some validity to this. The English language has changed and we need translations that match the way of the usage of language for our time. One can say the KJV was beautiful for its time and still does maintain some great beauty today, but it is also a difficult translation to understand using words and idioms we no longer use.

These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the … BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN’T.

So, should we believe:

  1. A) The ‘non-financially’ compensated comments of the first view?


  1. B) Should we believe ‘salesmen’ and ‘marketing ads’ ?

We should believe what is true regardless of what the motivations are for someone saying it. I could just as well say that Johnson is a salesman for the position of KJV-onlyism so should I believe him? Of course, I can also point out that he is only giving one side of the equation.

Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let’s get the facts.

Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that that will happen. To get the facts, one actually needs to consult both sides of the equation. Johnson does not have any opposing sources in his bibliography. He only quotes KJV-onlyists and then what they have to say about his opponents.

Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several ‘claims’. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.

And throughout this work I have been testing Johnson for truth and so far, he isn’t doing good. We’ll see if this gets any better, but I doubt that it will.

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


Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.4

What was the response to the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as we continue, now we get to the rave reviews of the KJV. It’s strange to point to what would normally be considered the approval of men. Also, I can point to high praise of modern translations, but I suspect that will not count. At any rate, the source material is here.

What do you get when you start with the true Word of God and then add: the anointing of the Holy Spirit, godly men in excellent health, an optimum work environment, an organized work approach, and a system of quality control though comprehensive peer reviews?

Gotta love the stacking of the deck. It’s noteworthy that nothing is said about the preface of the KJV which we have talked about in earlier posts.

You get the following:

“The KJV reverberates with eternal familiarity” [S6Pvi].

Of course, Johnson doesn’t tell us who said this. No. I’m not going back and checking all his sources to find justification for one quote.

Of the Bible: Queen Victoria said: “… That book accounts for the supremacy of England”, George Washington said: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”, Patrick Henry boasted: “The bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed” [S9P3].

While Washington did use the KJV, it doesn’t follow that he means only the KJV here. I couldn’t find what Bible Henry used, but a user of modern translations could easily agree with these statements. The same applies to Queen Victoria.

“Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST example of English literature that the world HAS EVER SEEN …” [S2P260].

Someone point me to these atheists and skeptics and others please.

Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as: “one of the FINEST samples of writing styles IN EXISTENCE” [S3P212].

And someone who agrees with modern translations can affirm this as well.

“… 250 different versions of the Bible were tried in England between 1611 and now, but they ALL FELL FLAT before the majesty of the King James” [S2P253].

No references are given for this. It would be interesting to explore what other factors could be in place, but unfortunately, Johnson doesn’t bother with that.

“[The King James Bible] was accepted in common use by the people, without coercion, and has been blessed of God as no other book of any language …” [S9P1].

The KJV: “… has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the most beautiful, it bears the most fruit, it produces spiritual revival, it is easiest to memorize, its readers are the most zealous to read it often” [S9P2].

It would be interesting to see how anyone could demonstrate any of these claims.

“But upon the whole the version of 1611 … is probably the best version ever made for public use. It is not simply a translation, but a living reproduction of the original scriptures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they were learned. It reads like an original work, such as the prophets and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for English readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich resources of the English language, the most cosmopolitan of all modern languages, and blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspiration from this pure well of English undefiled. Its best recommendation is its universal adoption and use … Next to Christianity itself, the version of 1611 is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all that is trulyvaluable in our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and happiness to our domestic, social, and national life” [S6P96].

This is all well and good, but it doesn’t make the case for Johnson. You can believe this and still not be a KJV-onlyist. Of course, primary sources are never used.

“The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text … an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes IMPOSSIBLE strains on the imagination” [S2P34]

This is similar also to claims made about the Koran and about the Book of Mormon and the account of the seventy in making the Septuagint.

“Herein lies the greatest weakness of contemporary textual criticism. Denying to the Majority text any claim to represent the actual form of the original text, it is nevertheless unable to explain its rise, its comparative uniformity, and its dominance in any satisfactory manner. All of these factors CAN be rationally accounted for, however, IF THE MAJORITY TEXT REPRESENTS SIMPLY THE CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM THE VERY FIRST” [S2P34].

And isn’t the last one the question to be asked? Also, go talk to any of these scholars. They easily can explain what happened.

We will continue next time.

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


Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.2

Who put together the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at this book. Today, we’re going to look some at the men who put this together. Next time we discuss this, it will be the documents. For now, the source material is here.

“On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version” [S16P7].

And, it was understood that if 54 scholars were not enough:

“… ALL the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment” [S2P257].

“The Kings order was carried out with utmost zeal and knowledge in an orderly manner” [S9P1] and “… because of the careful planning the whole project was completed in less than seven years” [S8P64].

Interesting, but not really relevant. However, I do want to point out that when it came to Constantine, we heard loads about his character. Why is it that when we come to what is supposed to be the perfect Bible, we hear NOTHING about the character of the man who ordered that one, good or bad? If it was relevant for Constantine, wouldn’t it be relevant here?



“Without any question there never has been a greater group of scholars gathered together at one time than the … translators of the King James Version” [S10P5].

I guess Nicea just didn’t really cut it then or any of the early church councils at all.

“The most qualified of the entire English speaking world were summoned …” [S9P1]. “They were all eminent scholars, and they all had great reverence for the Word of God, being wholly committed to its inspiration and infallibility …” [S13P7].

Okay. And? What follows from this?

“No one can study the lives of those men who gave us the King James Bible without being impressed with their profound and varied learning” [S2P258].


“Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the manuscripts which they handled as the Holy Word of God” [S1P182].

We will see when we get to Westcott and Hort if they use any primary sources to back these claims.

“Let me show you a few of the translators of the Authorized Version. JOHN BOIS was able to read the Bible in Hebrew when five years of age! When 14 he was a proficient Greek scholar and for years he spent from 4 o’clock in the morning til eight at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages… LANCELOT ANDREWS was the overall chairman, who was fluent in twenty languages, the greatest linguist of his day. He spent five hours a day in prayer and was so respected by the kings that orders were given, whenever Andrews was in court, there was to be no levity, no joking … JOHN CHEDDERTON, he knew Greek, Hebrew and Latin as well as you and I know English, and better” [S10P5].

Again, so what? That does not mean that their work was perfect.



“Originally 54 scholars were on the list but deaths and withdrawals reduced it finally to 47” [S8P64].

“These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language” [S16P7].

“Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinion were ironed out. It put the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers” [S4P102-103].

All of the work was done in the open.

This is fascinating if true, and I’m not to say if it is or isn’t.

But none of this means the KJV is a perfect translation for all time. We know this because the translators themselves said so. See their preface here.

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where.…A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

I can’t imagine why KJV-onlyists don’t listen to this….

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


Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.1

What about the making of the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we’re finally getting to the making of the KJV. in all that I say, I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJV-onlyism. The KJV is not a perfect Bible, but it’s not a horrible one either and thankfully has been used for the salvation of many. As always, the link can be found here.

“Just prior to the translation of the King James Bible, England had broken free of the yoke of Rome. Shortly after the Authorized Version was published, England once again started down the road back to Rome. For a brief ‘parenthesis’ in English history, England was free of Roman influence just long enough to translate and propagate a perfect Bible” [S1P161].

Idolatry aside, one wonders what constitutes a perfect Bible and how can you know. Did we not have a perfect Bible in the original manuscripts? Those were written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Did God have to wait until 17th century English to get a perfect Bible?

The King James Bible “… was produced during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English language was at its height of purity” [S1P183].

How could you tell English was at its height of purity? English like all language changes over time. Who is it who says that it has reached the height and on what grounds?

And God foresaw the widespread use of the English language. Notice that:

“English is the language of this world. English is taught to Russian pilots, because it is universal. It is learned by Oriental businessmen, because it is universal. It was the first language spoken on the moon” [S1P40].

English is universal, but this gets us to the problem of the Koran as well. Muslims will tell you unless you read the Koran in Arabic, you do not understand it. What are we to say of Wycliffe Bible translators translating the Bible tirelessly into the languages of the people they evangelize? They just won’t understand the Bible really until they learn KJV English? Is there any purpose to even study Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic anymore?

And, God gave us the BEST English:

“The English language in 1611 was in the very best condition … Each word was broad, simple, and generic. That is to say, words were capable of containing in themselves not only their central thoughts, but also all the different shades of meaning which were attached to that central thought.

Since then, words have lost that living, pliable breadth. Vast additions have been made to the English vocabulary during the past 300 years, so that several words are now necessary to convey the same meaning which formerly was conveyed by one” [S2P246-247].

And to which I say, “Says who?” Who says this was the best. Yes. Language has changed and it has also changed because we have realities today they didn’t back then. How would you say “Smartphone” in Elizabethan English? How would you talk about the threat of nuclear war in that language?

“The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in ‘modern English’ are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into a degenerated vocabulary of today!” [S1P41].

I am curious what I am to think about the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the times of the Bible….

And so, “Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship” [S2P244-245].

This is quite likely.

And today that scholarship has greatly enriched with more and more information.

And as words have changed, so we have to translate the Bible at times so people can understand it better.

We’ll continue next time.

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


Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.2

What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I’m going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after all. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

Johnson puts this in a number of sections and I will do the same.

The Spiritual Attack

“About 1582 … the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale’s English Version” [S2P233].

“The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity” [S2P239].

“Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call … to … undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version” [S2P239-240].

Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. “With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology” [S2P240].

Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle …

The problem with all of this is we have no statements from Catholic and/or Jesuit sources. It reminds me of what we say happens in politics on the conservative side. You get a leftist to present their case and then another leftist to say what they think about the conservative case.

The Physical Attack

“Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war – they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement” [S2P240].

Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan’s lies. With Drake, a type of ‘David’ was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.

Now, which side do you think God was on?

I use it to the experts on war history to comment on this. For the last question though, first off, I think the response from a Civil War discussion is better and I think it was Lincoln who said it. We should hope we are on God’s side. Second, I am not convinced God has a “side” in this. It could be a case of “A pox on both your houses.” This is not to say neither side is Christian, but both were acting outside of the Christian tradition.

The Outcome: God Protects His Own

Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:

“… the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power” [S2P240].

Hallelujah! Praise God!

I would think a more fitting response would be mourning like was done in Judges when Benjamin had been defeated. Yes, they were in the wrong, but they were still the brothers of Israel.

The Perfect Masterpiece

“Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece” [S2P242].

This perfect masterpiece: “… was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament” [S2P242].

English Protestantism: “… gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, – The King James Bible, called ‘The Miracle of English Prose'” [S2P242].

And if this is not idolatry, it comes awfully close. I wonder if Johnson thinks the Apocrypha is part of this perfect masterpiece. Oh, wait. Just did a check. He’s never mentioning it again after chapter 15. I’m not surprised.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.2

What about the practices of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks to them. For now, the source material can again be found here.

These are some of the Jesuits’ beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?

“In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000. In 1589, when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by the name of Jacques Clement. Clement was called an ‘angel’ by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: … Jacques Clement has done a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the King then let’s do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let’s put him to death … we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein …” [S1P91-92].

As bad as that was, “The Jesuit’s murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a Catholic rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by a Father Varade, A JESUIT PRIEST. In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been TAUGHT by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot” [S1P92-93].

Six years later, “In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations” [S1P93].

Well “This was the last straw! Henry the IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:

… On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writings of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of heretic ‘tyrants’ or those INSUFFICIENTLY DEVOTED to the Papacy’s interests. The duke of Epernon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d’Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately what he heard in the confessional” [S1P93].

All of these sound bad and there are no primary sources cited. I do know there is a lot of misinformation on the medieval church and that period altogether, but for the sake of argument. Let’s accept all of this as true.

So what?

I mean, of course, it matters that it happened, but that doesn’t show that the text has been altered. I suspect most Roman Catholics who would read this would be quite ashamed to hear these kinds of accounts (Assuming they are true) and I dare say there are likely many times in Protestant history we have been the villains as well.

Reverend Gipp says: “This is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve his word? [S1P93-94]

This is a horrible argument with just a simple question to show how bad it is.

Who preserved the Old Testament before Jesus came?

Why, yes. The nation of Israel. Now what was that nation like? Just read your Old Testament and you will see. They were hardly honoring to YHWH for the majority and yet, they were the ones that God used to preserve His word.

God uses flawed human beings regularly. Aside from Jesus, they’re the only kind of human beings He has.

Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!

Now I would say we have a lot more in common that not, but that’s not relevant.

Should Protestants form ‘pacts’ or ‘agreements’ with Catholics? I think not.

The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.

What happened in the past if true was horrible, but one should not stay there. If Johnson wants the RCC to answer for all the sins of its past, and to an extent they should, then we as Protestants should own up to ours.

Either way, bad argument.

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 — 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].


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)