The following Bible verses from the book of Isaiah show a side of God’s personality that even Christians don’t like. People like to think of God as Santa Claus or something like that. These words of God are his stand as God and his challenge to anyone or anything that would doubt his authority. To anyone who likes to think of God’s Book, the Holy Bible as just another man made book, or insists that God is not worthy of worship and obedience, this is what God Himself has to say to you.
“To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.”
“Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.”
“All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.”
“To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.”
“Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.”
“Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.”
“Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, He is righteous? yea, there is none that sheweth, yea, there is none that declareth, yea, there is none that heareth your words.”
“For I beheld, and there was no man; even among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer a word. Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion.”
“I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.”
“Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?”
“Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.”
“And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed. Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?”
“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;”
“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!”
“I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.”
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.”
“To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship. They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in his place, and he standeth; from his place shall he not remove: yea, one shall cry unto him, yet can he not answer, nor save him out of his trouble. Remember this, and shew yourselves men: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors. Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.”
“For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me. Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know. Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.”
“There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.”
Isaiah 40:12-15, 17-23, 25, 28; 41:21-24, 26, 28-29; 42:8-9; 43:8-13, 26; 44:7-10, 24-25; 45:5-9, 12, 18-24; 46:5-11; 47:10-13; 48:22.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Bible
The Bible
The absolute and final authority for all matters of faith and practice is the inerrant, infallible, incorruptible word of God, which is, for English speaking people, the Authorized King James Version, translated in 1611 A.D. For non - English speaking people, there are versions of the word of God in hundreds of other languages translated from the King James Bible, Luther's German Bible, and the Textus Receptus Manuscripts.
b. the corrupt word
Paul said, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God" (II Corinthians 2:17). While Bible believers hold true to and make a stand for the incorruptible word of God (as Peter called it in I Peter 1:23), many have corrupted the word of God by writing phony manuscripts (Vaticanus and Siniaticus, 331 A.D., Alexandrius, 450 A.D., the so-called Septuigant written by Origen) and translating phony bibles from those manuscripts (Jerome's version, the Latin Vulgate, Henry Alford's New Testament, 1861, the Revised Version, 1884, and every English version printed in this country since 1900 -> ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, etc.)
I believe in the words of the Authorized King James Version. Believing THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK saved me. I did not know, when I received Jesus as my Saviour, in May 1981, that there were such differences in versions of the Bible. I believed BY FAITH AND BY A SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the A V is the word of God, without error, and therefore the words of truth, i.e. the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice. As I have read and studied the A V, in the past eighteen years, and read completely through it several times, there has been and still is A SPIRITUAL WITNESS TO BELIEVE WHAT THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK SAY. In studying the difference between the versions, THAT WITNESS TELLS ME EVERY TIME TO BELIEVE WHAT THE A V SAYS where others differ from it. So, I believe BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY that God wrote infallibly in the original Hebrew and Greek writings and that He, through copies and translations, preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the Lord † (Psalm 12:6-7), and what GOD HAD IN MIND WHEN HE WROTE PROVERBS 22:20-21 is the preservation of an infallible authority (the certainty of the words of truth).
[Alternate readings for “preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the LORD”:
1. “preserved the words of the LORD which are pure words”.
2. “preserved the pure words of the LORD”.
3. “preserved the words of the LORD as pure words”.
4. “preserved the words of the LORD pure”. ]
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Where it comes into play with Bible preservation, knowing that verse 7 is talking about the words of the Lord of verse 6, the ‘scholars’ think, “Since the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, those Hebrew and Greek words are the words of God. So, God is going to keep and preserve those Hebrew and Greek words”. That’s why they get Bible preservation connected with preserving the Hebrew and Greek word of God. And that’s why they think the final authority is the Hebrew and the Greek. Because that’s where God preserved his word they believe. And that’s why they think you have to study the Hebrew and the Greek to understand the Bible. Because that’s where God preserved his words they think. But the truth of the matter is these verses don’t mean that God will preserve the exact Hebrew and Greek words. The preservation of the pure words of the LORD is not in the Majority Text or the Traditional Text or the Textus Receptus (Greek and/or Hebrew manuscripts) or the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of Strong’s Concordance. The preservation of the pure words of the LORD is in the English Authorised King James Bible.
When the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, He is not saying, “The original writings were given by inspiration of God”. The scriptures that the Holy Spirit, THE AUTHOR OF THE SCRIPTURE, is speaking of are the scriptures that were available to Paul and Timothy, which were not the originals. “Scripture” (vs. 16) does not mean ‘only the originals’ or Timothy could not have known the holy scriptures (vs. 15). Knowing that scripture is something that is available, I believe that the scripture that God has provided for me (in English) “is given by inspiration of God”.
Since the originals, there has always been a pure, inerrant, infallible, available manifestation of the word of God. Included in the history of the pure word of God are: Old Testament Hebrew, Old Testament Syriac, Greek New Testament, Old Syriac (Pheshitto), Old Latin (not Jerome’s), Martin Luther’s German Bible, and the Authorized King James Version.
I believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, with “scripture” defined in 2 Timothy 3:15 as available scripture. I’ve found that the Bible example for us to follow is to believe the scripture (John 2:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). I believe the scripture is the word of truth as it calls itself. I believe the original scripture and the available scripture are inerrant. If not, then, the scripture would not serve God’s purpose in writing (Proverbs 22:20-21; Psalm 119:41-43). I believe God preserved the purity of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7). I believe the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that to understand the Bible, you must believe what it says, search the scriptures, comparing scripture with scripture (comparing Bible verses with Bible verses by word association). See 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and John 6:63.
I believe the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant Bible because: 1) There are obvious errors in the others (2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; Galatians 5:4; Matthew 5:22) and 2) All the while that A V critics strain at gnats and swallow camels, there is still not one proven error in its text.
Following the Lord’s example, a man called by God should preach and teach “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The Lord gave us our authority for edification (2 Corinthians 10:8). Paul told Titus to “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Make full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5).
The Authorized King James Version is the preserved, inerrant word of God.
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
This verse in its context could not possibly refer to 'only the originals'. Look at verse 8. “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” Here Jesus said that he had given the words, which God had given to him, which is essentially what all the human writers of the Bible did. Then, he says, in verse 20, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;". The Lord's prayer in John 17 he prayed for me. He asked God to sanctify ME through his truth. And then he said, "Thy word is truth". I must believe that I have God's word and that His word is truth.
Peter said, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy” in verse 19. In the verses before, Peter was speaking of the voice of God from heaven. Then, in verses 20-21, he spoke of the inspiration of scripture. Peter said that because of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Peter (we) had a more sure word than God speaking from heaven. Peter claimed just as much (or more) inspiration for the scripture that he had [he said, “we have”] as the original scripture. And he actually said that the scripture that he had was “more sure” than the original!
The absolute and final authority for all matters of faith and practice is the inerrant, infallible, incorruptible word of God, which is, for English speaking people, the Authorized King James Version, translated in 1611 A.D. For non - English speaking people, there are versions of the word of God in hundreds of other languages translated from the King James Bible, Luther's German Bible, and the Textus Receptus Manuscripts.
b. the corrupt word
Paul said, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God" (II Corinthians 2:17). While Bible believers hold true to and make a stand for the incorruptible word of God (as Peter called it in I Peter 1:23), many have corrupted the word of God by writing phony manuscripts (Vaticanus and Siniaticus, 331 A.D., Alexandrius, 450 A.D., the so-called Septuigant written by Origen) and translating phony bibles from those manuscripts (Jerome's version, the Latin Vulgate, Henry Alford's New Testament, 1861, the Revised Version, 1884, and every English version printed in this country since 1900 -> ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, etc.)
I believe in the words of the Authorized King James Version. Believing THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK saved me. I did not know, when I received Jesus as my Saviour, in May 1981, that there were such differences in versions of the Bible. I believed BY FAITH AND BY A SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the A V is the word of God, without error, and therefore the words of truth, i.e. the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice. As I have read and studied the A V, in the past eighteen years, and read completely through it several times, there has been and still is A SPIRITUAL WITNESS TO BELIEVE WHAT THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK SAY. In studying the difference between the versions, THAT WITNESS TELLS ME EVERY TIME TO BELIEVE WHAT THE A V SAYS where others differ from it. So, I believe BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY that God wrote infallibly in the original Hebrew and Greek writings and that He, through copies and translations, preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the Lord † (Psalm 12:6-7), and what GOD HAD IN MIND WHEN HE WROTE PROVERBS 22:20-21 is the preservation of an infallible authority (the certainty of the words of truth).
[Alternate readings for “preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the LORD”:
1. “preserved the words of the LORD which are pure words”.
2. “preserved the pure words of the LORD”.
3. “preserved the words of the LORD as pure words”.
4. “preserved the words of the LORD pure”. ]
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Where it comes into play with Bible preservation, knowing that verse 7 is talking about the words of the Lord of verse 6, the ‘scholars’ think, “Since the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, those Hebrew and Greek words are the words of God. So, God is going to keep and preserve those Hebrew and Greek words”. That’s why they get Bible preservation connected with preserving the Hebrew and Greek word of God. And that’s why they think the final authority is the Hebrew and the Greek. Because that’s where God preserved his word they believe. And that’s why they think you have to study the Hebrew and the Greek to understand the Bible. Because that’s where God preserved his words they think. But the truth of the matter is these verses don’t mean that God will preserve the exact Hebrew and Greek words. The preservation of the pure words of the LORD is not in the Majority Text or the Traditional Text or the Textus Receptus (Greek and/or Hebrew manuscripts) or the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of Strong’s Concordance. The preservation of the pure words of the LORD is in the English Authorised King James Bible.
When the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, He is not saying, “The original writings were given by inspiration of God”. The scriptures that the Holy Spirit, THE AUTHOR OF THE SCRIPTURE, is speaking of are the scriptures that were available to Paul and Timothy, which were not the originals. “Scripture” (vs. 16) does not mean ‘only the originals’ or Timothy could not have known the holy scriptures (vs. 15). Knowing that scripture is something that is available, I believe that the scripture that God has provided for me (in English) “is given by inspiration of God”.
Since the originals, there has always been a pure, inerrant, infallible, available manifestation of the word of God. Included in the history of the pure word of God are: Old Testament Hebrew, Old Testament Syriac, Greek New Testament, Old Syriac (Pheshitto), Old Latin (not Jerome’s), Martin Luther’s German Bible, and the Authorized King James Version.
I believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, with “scripture” defined in 2 Timothy 3:15 as available scripture. I’ve found that the Bible example for us to follow is to believe the scripture (John 2:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). I believe the scripture is the word of truth as it calls itself. I believe the original scripture and the available scripture are inerrant. If not, then, the scripture would not serve God’s purpose in writing (Proverbs 22:20-21; Psalm 119:41-43). I believe God preserved the purity of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7). I believe the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that to understand the Bible, you must believe what it says, search the scriptures, comparing scripture with scripture (comparing Bible verses with Bible verses by word association). See 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and John 6:63.
I believe the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant Bible because: 1) There are obvious errors in the others (2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; Galatians 5:4; Matthew 5:22) and 2) All the while that A V critics strain at gnats and swallow camels, there is still not one proven error in its text.
Following the Lord’s example, a man called by God should preach and teach “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The Lord gave us our authority for edification (2 Corinthians 10:8). Paul told Titus to “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Make full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5).
The Authorized King James Version is the preserved, inerrant word of God.
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
This verse in its context could not possibly refer to 'only the originals'. Look at verse 8. “For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.” Here Jesus said that he had given the words, which God had given to him, which is essentially what all the human writers of the Bible did. Then, he says, in verse 20, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;". The Lord's prayer in John 17 he prayed for me. He asked God to sanctify ME through his truth. And then he said, "Thy word is truth". I must believe that I have God's word and that His word is truth.
Peter said, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy” in verse 19. In the verses before, Peter was speaking of the voice of God from heaven. Then, in verses 20-21, he spoke of the inspiration of scripture. Peter said that because of the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, Peter (we) had a more sure word than God speaking from heaven. Peter claimed just as much (or more) inspiration for the scripture that he had [he said, “we have”] as the original scripture. And he actually said that the scripture that he had was “more sure” than the original!
The Two Kingdoms
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN
In 1 Chronicles 29:11, “the kingdom” is described as “all that is in the heaven and in the earth”. This is undoubtedly the kingdom of heaven, the reign over the literal, physical, visible people, creatures, and things in the universe.
According to Daniel 2:44 & 7:27, God shall set up his reign over the kingdom of heaven and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.
When John the Baptist and Jesus Christ came preaching to Israel, they said that the setting up of God’s reign (the kingdom of heaven) was near (at hand). [Matthew 3:1-2 and 4:17]
In Matthew 5, 6, and 7, Jesus preached the famous sermon on the mount to prepare them for the soon coming reign of Christ on the earth. The following should be noted concerning this sermon of our Lord:
1. Chapter 5: verse 8 has to do with the “King of glory” [see Psalm 24].
2. Chapter 5: verse 9 seems to put a condition on being “called the children of God”.
3. According to what Jesus said in Chapter 5: verse 22, Paul would “be in danger of hell fire” if he was in the kingdom of heaven. [See 1 Corinthians 15:36.]
4. According to Chapter 5: verses 29-30, you should sever and throw away your body parts to prevent “that thy whole body should be cast into hell”.
5. Notice the mention of Jerusalem as “the city of the great King” in Chapter 5: verse 35.
6. Notice how well Chapter 5: verses 43 & 44 blend in with the old testament [see Psalm 139:21-22 and Proverbs 25:21-22].
7. Now notice especially that verse 44 lists conditions for being a child of the “Father which is in heaven” according to verse 45. [And this time, it does not merely say, “be called the children of God” like in 5:9.]
8. In Chapter 6: verse 9, Jesus tells them to pray “Our Father” which is a Jewish national title for God – not a Christian title for God.
9. Chapter 6: verse 10 has the Jews in the tribulation praying for God to set up his kingdom [Luke 1:31-33] on earth.
10. Chapter 6: verse 11 has them asking for manna during the wilderness journey in the tribulation.
11. The end of the prayer (verse 13) mentions that everlasting kingdom.
12. Chapter 6: verses 14 – 15 gives forgiving as a requirement for gaining God’s forgiveness. This is, of course, in direct contrast to all my sins being forgiven when I got saved [Colossians 2:13].
13. The sermon on the mount was to Jewish disciples only [see Chapter 6: verse 32].
14. Jesus had to tell them to “seek the kingdom of God” because they were only seeking the kingdom of heaven and had no idea about the kingdom of God or spiritual things. [See John 3:10.]
15. Chapter 7: verses 15-20 give a strong implication of works for salvation, especially verses 18-19.
According to Matthew 8:11-12, some “children of the kingdom” of heaven “shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” There are lost children of the kingdom of heaven. And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. (Matthew 9:35)
“ This gospel of the kingdom ” is given in Matthew 24:4-13. His disciples asked him in Matthew 24:3, “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” His coming is to set up his reign on earth over the kingdom of heaven, the everlasting kingdom. Jesus spoke for ten verses and then said, “This gospel of the kingdom” meaning what he had just said.
This is not the gospel that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Characteristics of The Kingdom of God
Jesus had to tell them to “seek the kingdom of God” (in Matthew 6:33) because they were only seeking the kingdom of heaven (their prophesied Messiah to set up his everlasting kingdom) and had no idea about the kingdom of God or spiritual things. [See John 3:10.] Israel, nationally, never did seek the kingdom of God.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:28, “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you”. While both kingdoms were said to be “at hand”, the kingdom of heaven is nowhere said to have come.
In fact, Jesus told Pilate that the kingdom of heaven had not yet come. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)
There are, of course, verses that show similarities between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. For an example, see Matthew 19:23-24. However, just as a cat and a dog have some similarities but are not the same animal, the two kingdoms are both kingdoms but not the same kingdom.
Mark 14:25 compared to Matthew 26: 29 and Luke 22:15-18 shows that during the reign of Christ on earth both kingdoms will be present.
Joseph of Arimathaea, according to Mark 15:43 and Luke 23:50-51, waited for the kingdom of God. He and other disciples obviously were waiting for the baptism with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:4-5) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) at which time and thereafter the new birth (John 3:3-6) could take place.
According to Luke 16:16, “the kingdom of God is preached” since John. “The law and the prophets were until John”. This, of course, implies that the kingdom of God was not preached before John.
According to Luke 17:20-21, the kingdom of God is not the literal, physical, visible people, creatures, and things in the universe as the kingdom of heaven is. The kingdom of God is obviously spiritual – “is within you”.
Luke 19:11 either shows that the title “kingdom of God” is sometimes used for the kingdom of heaven or is just in reference to the kingdom of God coming at the day of Pentecost.
Luke 21:31 with Matthew 24:33 and Mark 13:29 shows that the title “kingdom of God” is definitely sometimes used for the kingdom of heaven.
According to John 3:3-6, a man has to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. This is in direct contrast to Matthew 8:11-12, where it is clearly seen that some children of the kingdom of heaven (verse 11) “shall be cast into outer darkness”.
Acts 14:22 uses the title “kingdom of God” speaking about the earned reward of reigning with Christ in the kingdom “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:17-18).
Romans 14:17 emphasizes the spiritual kingdom of God.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:50, our new body will not consist of “flesh and blood” although it will consist of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39-40).
Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, and 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 are other passages speaking about the earned reward of reigning with Christ like Acts 14:22.
In 1 Chronicles 29:11, “the kingdom” is described as “all that is in the heaven and in the earth”. This is undoubtedly the kingdom of heaven, the reign over the literal, physical, visible people, creatures, and things in the universe.
According to Daniel 2:44 & 7:27, God shall set up his reign over the kingdom of heaven and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.
When John the Baptist and Jesus Christ came preaching to Israel, they said that the setting up of God’s reign (the kingdom of heaven) was near (at hand). [Matthew 3:1-2 and 4:17]
In Matthew 5, 6, and 7, Jesus preached the famous sermon on the mount to prepare them for the soon coming reign of Christ on the earth. The following should be noted concerning this sermon of our Lord:
1. Chapter 5: verse 8 has to do with the “King of glory” [see Psalm 24].
2. Chapter 5: verse 9 seems to put a condition on being “called the children of God”.
3. According to what Jesus said in Chapter 5: verse 22, Paul would “be in danger of hell fire” if he was in the kingdom of heaven. [See 1 Corinthians 15:36.]
4. According to Chapter 5: verses 29-30, you should sever and throw away your body parts to prevent “that thy whole body should be cast into hell”.
5. Notice the mention of Jerusalem as “the city of the great King” in Chapter 5: verse 35.
6. Notice how well Chapter 5: verses 43 & 44 blend in with the old testament [see Psalm 139:21-22 and Proverbs 25:21-22].
7. Now notice especially that verse 44 lists conditions for being a child of the “Father which is in heaven” according to verse 45. [And this time, it does not merely say, “be called the children of God” like in 5:9.]
8. In Chapter 6: verse 9, Jesus tells them to pray “Our Father” which is a Jewish national title for God – not a Christian title for God.
9. Chapter 6: verse 10 has the Jews in the tribulation praying for God to set up his kingdom [Luke 1:31-33] on earth.
10. Chapter 6: verse 11 has them asking for manna during the wilderness journey in the tribulation.
11. The end of the prayer (verse 13) mentions that everlasting kingdom.
12. Chapter 6: verses 14 – 15 gives forgiving as a requirement for gaining God’s forgiveness. This is, of course, in direct contrast to all my sins being forgiven when I got saved [Colossians 2:13].
13. The sermon on the mount was to Jewish disciples only [see Chapter 6: verse 32].
14. Jesus had to tell them to “seek the kingdom of God” because they were only seeking the kingdom of heaven and had no idea about the kingdom of God or spiritual things. [See John 3:10.]
15. Chapter 7: verses 15-20 give a strong implication of works for salvation, especially verses 18-19.
According to Matthew 8:11-12, some “children of the kingdom” of heaven “shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” There are lost children of the kingdom of heaven. And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. (Matthew 9:35)
“ This gospel of the kingdom ” is given in Matthew 24:4-13. His disciples asked him in Matthew 24:3, “What shall be the sign of thy coming?” His coming is to set up his reign on earth over the kingdom of heaven, the everlasting kingdom. Jesus spoke for ten verses and then said, “This gospel of the kingdom” meaning what he had just said.
This is not the gospel that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Characteristics of The Kingdom of God
Jesus had to tell them to “seek the kingdom of God” (in Matthew 6:33) because they were only seeking the kingdom of heaven (their prophesied Messiah to set up his everlasting kingdom) and had no idea about the kingdom of God or spiritual things. [See John 3:10.] Israel, nationally, never did seek the kingdom of God.
Jesus said in Matthew 12:28, “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you”. While both kingdoms were said to be “at hand”, the kingdom of heaven is nowhere said to have come.
In fact, Jesus told Pilate that the kingdom of heaven had not yet come. “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)
There are, of course, verses that show similarities between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. For an example, see Matthew 19:23-24. However, just as a cat and a dog have some similarities but are not the same animal, the two kingdoms are both kingdoms but not the same kingdom.
Mark 14:25 compared to Matthew 26: 29 and Luke 22:15-18 shows that during the reign of Christ on earth both kingdoms will be present.
Joseph of Arimathaea, according to Mark 15:43 and Luke 23:50-51, waited for the kingdom of God. He and other disciples obviously were waiting for the baptism with the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:4-5) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1) at which time and thereafter the new birth (John 3:3-6) could take place.
According to Luke 16:16, “the kingdom of God is preached” since John. “The law and the prophets were until John”. This, of course, implies that the kingdom of God was not preached before John.
According to Luke 17:20-21, the kingdom of God is not the literal, physical, visible people, creatures, and things in the universe as the kingdom of heaven is. The kingdom of God is obviously spiritual – “is within you”.
Luke 19:11 either shows that the title “kingdom of God” is sometimes used for the kingdom of heaven or is just in reference to the kingdom of God coming at the day of Pentecost.
Luke 21:31 with Matthew 24:33 and Mark 13:29 shows that the title “kingdom of God” is definitely sometimes used for the kingdom of heaven.
According to John 3:3-6, a man has to be born again to enter the kingdom of God. This is in direct contrast to Matthew 8:11-12, where it is clearly seen that some children of the kingdom of heaven (verse 11) “shall be cast into outer darkness”.
Acts 14:22 uses the title “kingdom of God” speaking about the earned reward of reigning with Christ in the kingdom “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:17-18).
Romans 14:17 emphasizes the spiritual kingdom of God.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:50, our new body will not consist of “flesh and blood” although it will consist of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39-40).
Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:3-5, and 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 are other passages speaking about the earned reward of reigning with Christ like Acts 14:22.
The Gap Doctrine
[Proof from scripture that the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is a fact, not a theory.]
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
The date of the original creation is not given.
Here in Genesis 1:1, heaven is singular in contrast to "the heavens" of Genesis 2:1, proving that verses 1:2-31 are not a description of 1:1. In the first verse, there is only one heaven, but after the renewal of the face of the earth (verses 2 to 31), there are three heavens. The first heaven, where fowl fly above the earth, is in verse 20. The second heaven, where the sun, moon, and stars are (verses 14-18) is between two great bodies of water (verses 6-8). The third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2) is in verse 1.
Some have made the claim that "the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4-6) was the six day time period in which God created Adam because of Mark 10:6 where Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." This claim is staked in order to prove that there could not be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This denial of the gap may seem to be supported by Mark 13:19, where Jesus also said, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." This definition of "the beginning of the creation", however, becomes a problem when you see that the Lord Jesus Christ, himself, is called "the beginning of the creation of God" in Revelation 3:14.
In order to more perfectly understand "the beginning", we must search the scriptures. We will find that some scriptures that mention "the beginning" will match Genesis 1:1 and some will not. I find only seven verses that mention "the beginning" which match Genesis 1:1. They are 1 John 1:1; John 1:1; Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 8:22,23; Isaiah 40:21; and Hebrews 1:10. If you try to put any others into the Genesis 1:1 context, you will have trouble reconciling them with the rest. For example, where was Abram’s tent in the beginning? (See Genesis 13:3). "In the beginning was the Word [“the Word of life" (1 John 1:1)], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [the word which "is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160)]. The best definition of "the beginning" is found by comparing Genesis 1:1 with Isaiah 40:21 and Hebrews 1:10. " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " " Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? " " And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: " The definition of "the beginning" is: when God laid the foundation(s) of the earth.
Again, comparing scripture with scripture will provide essential information. We now must look at matching verses for "the foundations of the earth" (Job 38:4; Psalm 82:5; Psalm 104:5). From Job 38:4-7, I learn that when God laid the foundations of the earth, there were morning stars singing and sons of God shouting for joy and also that the original earth had a cornerstone. I feel safe in guessing that it was a head cornerstone, just as Jesus Christ is the head cornerstone of the household of God (Luke 20:17; 1 Peter 2:6-8; Ephesians 2:19-22), and was shaped like a pyramid. I would also guess that, having a head cornerstone, the earth was a precious jewel made of gold, silver, and precious stones (Proverbs 20:15; 1 Corinthians 3:12; 1 Peter 2:4-5; Revelation 21:10-21). This is a good explanation of why Lucifer was covered with every precious stone (Ezekiel 28:13)...
Continuing to compare scripture with scripture, looking at matching verses for "the foundations of the earth", I see in Psalm 82:5 that "all the foundations of the earth are out of course". How could this be? What happened to make the earth "without form and void"? Psalm 104:5-6 says, "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:" (Compare Hebrews 1:10-11)
Now, before going any further, some facts must be established by comparing scripture with scripture. We must look at the indications from some other verses. The word "replenish" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Genesis 9:1 after a flood. The other occurrence of the word is in Genesis 1:28 [obviously after a flood]. The phrase "without form and void" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Jeremiah 4:23 in a context of God's judgment. The other occurrence of the phrase is in Genesis 1:2 [obviously in a context of God's judgment]. Also, the phrase "the face of the waters" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Genesis 7:18 during a flood. The other occurrence of the phrase is in Genesis 1:2 [obviously during a flood]. To make it absolutely clear, look at Psalm 104:30 (a verse that nobody even mentions when discussing the gap doctrine). "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The context is animals and creatures of the sea. Psalm 104:30 says that the creation, which included the creation of the animals, was a renewing of the face of the earth not the original creation.
References for "the deep": Genesis 1:2; 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Job 38:30; 41:31-32; Psalm 104:5-6; and Proverbs 8:28.
References for "the face of the waters": Genesis 1:2; 7:18; Job 26:7-10; 38:30; 37:18; Revelation 4:6; and 15:2....
Ezekiel 28:12-17 describes Lucifer before his rebellion against God. Verse 14 says, "Thou art the anointed". He was an anointed Christ, Messiah, and King. ["He is a king over all the children of pride." Job 41:34] Verse 14 continues, "Thou (Lucifer) wast upon the holy mountain of God". Since this is before Lucifer's fall, it would do well to search the scriptures for this "holy mountain of God".
"Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King." Psalms 48:1-2
"And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," Rev 21:10
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah 14:13-15
The "holy mountain of God" is "the city of God" in the sides of the north. That great city, the holy Jerusalem, is "in the sides of the north". The north - the farthest north, the third heaven is obviously where the holy city of God is (Galatians 4:25-26). The city, called a mountain, is shaped like a mountain or pyramid. New Jerusalem is God's replacement for the original earth and will be the home of born again Christians from the church age who are replacements for the angels who have fallen and those who will fall and follow Satan. Sons of God (angels) were the inhabitants of the original earth and sons of God will be the inhabitants of New Jerusalem.
Now back to Psalm 104:5-6, notice that verse 5 says that the foundations of the earth were laid "that it [the foundation of the earth] should not be removed for ever". Psalm 125:1 says that mount Zion "cannot be removed, but abideth for ever". Mount Zion (the holy city, new Jerusalem) was the cornerstone and foundation of the original earth.
“And the earth standing out of the water and in the water” (2 Peter 3:5). When God covered the earth with the deep (Psalm 104:6) - when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Genesis 1:2), the earth was pushed down into the deep (waters), but the foundation stayed.
“Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” (Genesis 1:2)
"Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away." Psalms 104:1-7
God rebuked the waters in Genesis 1:6, saying, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." When God made the firmament, the waters hasted away from the earth unlike the floodwaters of Noah's time. Notice that in making this firmament, God did not say that it was good like on the other days
This firmament is the Heaven in which God placed the sun, moon, and stars (verses 14-19). Waters - see Psalm 148:4 and Job 41:1, 31-32. The Exodus through the Red Sea is a picture of the rapture when the Christians will go through the sea onward to heaven. [See also Ecclesiastes 9:12; Habakkuk 1:14; Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17.]
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
The date of the original creation is not given.
Here in Genesis 1:1, heaven is singular in contrast to "the heavens" of Genesis 2:1, proving that verses 1:2-31 are not a description of 1:1. In the first verse, there is only one heaven, but after the renewal of the face of the earth (verses 2 to 31), there are three heavens. The first heaven, where fowl fly above the earth, is in verse 20. The second heaven, where the sun, moon, and stars are (verses 14-18) is between two great bodies of water (verses 6-8). The third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2) is in verse 1.
Some have made the claim that "the beginning of the creation" (2 Peter 3:4-6) was the six day time period in which God created Adam because of Mark 10:6 where Jesus said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." This claim is staked in order to prove that there could not be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This denial of the gap may seem to be supported by Mark 13:19, where Jesus also said, "For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be." This definition of "the beginning of the creation", however, becomes a problem when you see that the Lord Jesus Christ, himself, is called "the beginning of the creation of God" in Revelation 3:14.
In order to more perfectly understand "the beginning", we must search the scriptures. We will find that some scriptures that mention "the beginning" will match Genesis 1:1 and some will not. I find only seven verses that mention "the beginning" which match Genesis 1:1. They are 1 John 1:1; John 1:1; Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 8:22,23; Isaiah 40:21; and Hebrews 1:10. If you try to put any others into the Genesis 1:1 context, you will have trouble reconciling them with the rest. For example, where was Abram’s tent in the beginning? (See Genesis 13:3). "In the beginning was the Word [“the Word of life" (1 John 1:1)], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [the word which "is true from the beginning" (Psalm 119:160)]. The best definition of "the beginning" is found by comparing Genesis 1:1 with Isaiah 40:21 and Hebrews 1:10. " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. " " Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? " " And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: " The definition of "the beginning" is: when God laid the foundation(s) of the earth.
Again, comparing scripture with scripture will provide essential information. We now must look at matching verses for "the foundations of the earth" (Job 38:4; Psalm 82:5; Psalm 104:5). From Job 38:4-7, I learn that when God laid the foundations of the earth, there were morning stars singing and sons of God shouting for joy and also that the original earth had a cornerstone. I feel safe in guessing that it was a head cornerstone, just as Jesus Christ is the head cornerstone of the household of God (Luke 20:17; 1 Peter 2:6-8; Ephesians 2:19-22), and was shaped like a pyramid. I would also guess that, having a head cornerstone, the earth was a precious jewel made of gold, silver, and precious stones (Proverbs 20:15; 1 Corinthians 3:12; 1 Peter 2:4-5; Revelation 21:10-21). This is a good explanation of why Lucifer was covered with every precious stone (Ezekiel 28:13)...
Continuing to compare scripture with scripture, looking at matching verses for "the foundations of the earth", I see in Psalm 82:5 that "all the foundations of the earth are out of course". How could this be? What happened to make the earth "without form and void"? Psalm 104:5-6 says, "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment:" (Compare Hebrews 1:10-11)
Now, before going any further, some facts must be established by comparing scripture with scripture. We must look at the indications from some other verses. The word "replenish" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Genesis 9:1 after a flood. The other occurrence of the word is in Genesis 1:28 [obviously after a flood]. The phrase "without form and void" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Jeremiah 4:23 in a context of God's judgment. The other occurrence of the phrase is in Genesis 1:2 [obviously in a context of God's judgment]. Also, the phrase "the face of the waters" is in the Bible only two times. Once it is in Genesis 7:18 during a flood. The other occurrence of the phrase is in Genesis 1:2 [obviously during a flood]. To make it absolutely clear, look at Psalm 104:30 (a verse that nobody even mentions when discussing the gap doctrine). "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The context is animals and creatures of the sea. Psalm 104:30 says that the creation, which included the creation of the animals, was a renewing of the face of the earth not the original creation.
References for "the deep": Genesis 1:2; 7:11; 8:2; 49:25; Job 38:30; 41:31-32; Psalm 104:5-6; and Proverbs 8:28.
References for "the face of the waters": Genesis 1:2; 7:18; Job 26:7-10; 38:30; 37:18; Revelation 4:6; and 15:2....
Ezekiel 28:12-17 describes Lucifer before his rebellion against God. Verse 14 says, "Thou art the anointed". He was an anointed Christ, Messiah, and King. ["He is a king over all the children of pride." Job 41:34] Verse 14 continues, "Thou (Lucifer) wast upon the holy mountain of God". Since this is before Lucifer's fall, it would do well to search the scriptures for this "holy mountain of God".
"Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness. Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King." Psalms 48:1-2
"And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God," Rev 21:10
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Isaiah 14:13-15
The "holy mountain of God" is "the city of God" in the sides of the north. That great city, the holy Jerusalem, is "in the sides of the north". The north - the farthest north, the third heaven is obviously where the holy city of God is (Galatians 4:25-26). The city, called a mountain, is shaped like a mountain or pyramid. New Jerusalem is God's replacement for the original earth and will be the home of born again Christians from the church age who are replacements for the angels who have fallen and those who will fall and follow Satan. Sons of God (angels) were the inhabitants of the original earth and sons of God will be the inhabitants of New Jerusalem.
Now back to Psalm 104:5-6, notice that verse 5 says that the foundations of the earth were laid "that it [the foundation of the earth] should not be removed for ever". Psalm 125:1 says that mount Zion "cannot be removed, but abideth for ever". Mount Zion (the holy city, new Jerusalem) was the cornerstone and foundation of the original earth.
“And the earth standing out of the water and in the water” (2 Peter 3:5). When God covered the earth with the deep (Psalm 104:6) - when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Genesis 1:2), the earth was pushed down into the deep (waters), but the foundation stayed.
“Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” (Genesis 1:2)
"Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away." Psalms 104:1-7
God rebuked the waters in Genesis 1:6, saying, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." When God made the firmament, the waters hasted away from the earth unlike the floodwaters of Noah's time. Notice that in making this firmament, God did not say that it was good like on the other days
This firmament is the Heaven in which God placed the sun, moon, and stars (verses 14-19). Waters - see Psalm 148:4 and Job 41:1, 31-32. The Exodus through the Red Sea is a picture of the rapture when the Christians will go through the sea onward to heaven. [See also Ecclesiastes 9:12; Habakkuk 1:14; Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17.]
Man's Origin, Man's Destiny
Man's Origin, Man's Destiny
From the Epilogue (pages 271-272):
"Science (so-called) has been misused for a hundred years to invalidate the testimony of God in the Scriptures (particularly the argument from design). The biblical story of creation has been laughed out of court, and chance and natural selection have been put in its place. Huxley and others have reiterated ad nauseam that God is now an unnecessary concept. But science, real science, knows that a prime cause (or mover) is now just as necessary as in the days before "modern" science. The testimony of the Bible is still just as valid today as is the testimony of the living Christ in a living man."
"Moses' witness of Christ is so strong and the internal evidence for the correctness of his writings so compelling, that anyone doubting Moses will doubt any truth, no matter where it comes from or how evident its validity."
Man's Origin, Man's Destiny - A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity by A.E. Wilder-Smith [Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1975.]
His Plague Is In His Head
For anyone who claims they know there is no God (Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", and so many other deluded people):
In order for you to know absolutely that there is no God, you would have to have absolute knowledge. You would have to be omniscient which is one of God's attributes. So if you claim to know there is no God, you are claiming to be God yourself. We Christians find it much easier and much more logical to believe in the God of the Bible, the real omniscient Creator of the universe than to believe that you are God.
By the way, if any evolutionist really wanted the truth, he would look at the evolution and creation models side by side, looking at the evidence for each and which one best fits the known facts of science. The book I am currently reading (Scientific Creationism) does this very thing even without Biblical reference until the last chapter of the book. Now, I remember why I thought so highly of this book when I read it the first time.
I quote from page 28:
"Note the wistful suggestion of Isaac Asimov:
"Where did the substance of the universe come from?
..... If 0= +1 + -1, then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."
The source for the Asimov quote is "What Is Beyond The Universe?" Science Digest, Vol. 69 (April 1971), p. 69.
My response to Isaac Asimov, after calming from my infinite burst of laughter, is that there is nothing in poor Isaac's head, or perhaps there is "an infinite sea of nothingness". Thank you Mr. Laughter. Maybe I should read more of Asimov's material for the comedy. You do know that the name 'Isaac' means 'laughter', don't you?
Anyway, Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) had a "plague in his head" and in his heart like leprosy (Leviticus 13:44). I'm sure his views on life and death changed in 1992 when he went to hell. Poor Isaac's soul is now in torment in hell. He is being tormented in the flame of hell and desires to be comforted. And in addition to that he wishes to have someone sent to his family with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and testify unto them, lest they also go to the same place.
Luke 16:19-31 - There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Scientific Creationism
Like I said before "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris puts creation and evolution side by side and looks at how and where each one does and does not fit in with well known and proven facts of science. Of course, it is creation that fits more perfectly. The book is a very good book. We would like to see the evolutionist answer to the evidence therein. There are only a couple of problems with this book. The biggest problem for the ordinary person would be that in the chapter on the age of the earth, he goes into more detail and technical information than necessary. It is really enough to say simply that dating methods can not be trusted because we can not assume that uniformitarianism is correct. And at the end of the "Old or Young" chapter, he gives a very unnecessary but yet complicated Algebra equation dealing with the proposed population of the earth if man has been here for a million years or more. Then, in his last chapter, "Creation According To Scripture", is perhaps the most important thing in the whole issue of scientific creationism; that is the Biblical references to the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
Psalms 102:25-26 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Romans 7:21-25 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I had said before that an evolutionist should read two books; After Its Kind and The Collapse of Evolution. I would say at this point that an evolutionist should at least read any one good book on the subject. Naturally, the evolutionist would suggest that we Christians read evolution material. And I am not opposed to the idea of reading something suggested by an evolutionist. The problem is that anything written and promoted by evolutionists will be one sided, while the material that I have been reading presents the principles of both sides. So while I am willing to read some evolution material, I am already getting the evolution material. On the other hand, the evolutionist who will not read creationist material doesn't get all the information needed to make an intelligent evaluation of the issue. This is because of several things. The first problem is that Evolutionists assume evolution to be a fact at the start. Then, they have a great lack of understanding of creation principles. And further, they interpret the facts of science and other 'evidences' with a bias to support evolution. Also, they sometimes leave out evidence that favors creation. And finally, they believe that just because they are ignorant of certain things, those things could not possibly be true. For example, since they don't know there is a God, Almighty creator of the universe, there couldn't possibly one. For example, since they have not been "born of the Spirit" of God (John 3:5), it is impossible that anyone else has been Spiritually born and become a new creature in Christ. Since they don't know God and have a personal relationship with him, they think it is impossible that I do. The whole evolution position is ridiculous and based on ignorance.
The Blind Watchmaker
The Evolutionist. When I told him that I am getting the evolution material in the creationist books that I am reading, he said that he doubted that. He did say that he had read "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?" (by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) and had also looked through a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. [Having checked into these two books I found that they unfortunately are not sufficient to refute evolution by teaching creation. He has not done enough research to know the evidence for creation and against evolution.] And he suggested that I read some books by Richard Dawkins to be sure that I really understand evolution. I have obtained "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker".
So I thought I would make a few comments concerning this book The Blind Watchmaker. Richard (the Deluded and Blind Hearted) Dawkins states on the first page of his preface that "The problem is complexity of design. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. This amount of complex design cries out for an explanation." Then, on the next page, he says, "the Darwinian world-view is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." Since Dawkins admits apparent design, you should be able to see right away what he is going to do. He is going to take away from you the obvious truth in order to teach you a lie.
I am only 50 pages into his book and have seen several times that he can't make his mind up whether we were designed or not. He is very confused. On page 5, he says, "the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics". Yet at the same time (in the same sentence even) he says that all appearances are to the contrary. Hence he has to lie and tell you that the obvious truth is a lie. He calls natural selection 'the blind watchmaker' and says that natural selection is the explanation for the existence of all life and that while natural selection has no purpose in mind, it deceives us by giving "apparently purposeful form of all life". Well, apparently, natural selection is a very deceptive process which can not be trusted as an explanation for life. [Actually, evolution would be the purpose of natural selection (as my wife said) if it were true.]
"We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, crafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of deity." [Preface, page xii.]
It is so obvious to any person who will actually use that grey mass inside his head that life and the universe were created that you must stretch your imagination and deceive yourself in order to not believe in the Creator. You have to be educated out of your belief in Almighty God. In fact, Dawkins also says, "it took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that there is another way". Absolutely. That really describes evolution. Evolution is a very large leap of the imagination. Evolution is so far out into never never land with Peter Pan and Tinker Bell that Dawkins says on page xi, "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and find it hard to believe". Absolutely.
It is absolutely true that the human brain was designed to not understand Darwinism and to not believe it. The Bible says so. Romans 1:19-24 says "That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts."
Evolutionists have ignored the revelation of God that "God hath shewed unto them". They are without excuse. They knew God. They glorified him not. They were not thankful to God. They are vain in their imaginations. They have a foolish darkened heart. They have made fools of themselves. They need a change of heart.
Post Note:
Any really honest person has to admit that there is design in the creation no matter how it came about. Creation is the proper word. If Evolution were true then Evolution by natural selection is the Creator. There is design in the creation; not just apparent design. The creation has design. That is an absolute truth. The problem for the evolutionist is to admit the design in creation and still not believe in the designer. The only answer is to lie about the design. "It is not really design; it is just apparent design." "The Watchmaker is blind." As Dawkins says (page 5, The Blind Watchmaker), "A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs and plans with a future purpose in mind". Natural Selection, however, according to Dawkins, is deceptive, giving the appearance of design which is not really there. Natural Selection and Evolution is a lie. The True Watchmaker is God the Creator of the Universe and the Author of life.
From the Epilogue (pages 271-272):
"Science (so-called) has been misused for a hundred years to invalidate the testimony of God in the Scriptures (particularly the argument from design). The biblical story of creation has been laughed out of court, and chance and natural selection have been put in its place. Huxley and others have reiterated ad nauseam that God is now an unnecessary concept. But science, real science, knows that a prime cause (or mover) is now just as necessary as in the days before "modern" science. The testimony of the Bible is still just as valid today as is the testimony of the living Christ in a living man."
"Moses' witness of Christ is so strong and the internal evidence for the correctness of his writings so compelling, that anyone doubting Moses will doubt any truth, no matter where it comes from or how evident its validity."
Man's Origin, Man's Destiny - A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity by A.E. Wilder-Smith [Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1975.]
His Plague Is In His Head
For anyone who claims they know there is no God (Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", and so many other deluded people):
In order for you to know absolutely that there is no God, you would have to have absolute knowledge. You would have to be omniscient which is one of God's attributes. So if you claim to know there is no God, you are claiming to be God yourself. We Christians find it much easier and much more logical to believe in the God of the Bible, the real omniscient Creator of the universe than to believe that you are God.
By the way, if any evolutionist really wanted the truth, he would look at the evolution and creation models side by side, looking at the evidence for each and which one best fits the known facts of science. The book I am currently reading (Scientific Creationism) does this very thing even without Biblical reference until the last chapter of the book. Now, I remember why I thought so highly of this book when I read it the first time.
I quote from page 28:
"Note the wistful suggestion of Isaac Asimov:
"Where did the substance of the universe come from?
..... If 0= +1 + -1, then something which is 0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary changes, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the period of time between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it."
The source for the Asimov quote is "What Is Beyond The Universe?" Science Digest, Vol. 69 (April 1971), p. 69.
My response to Isaac Asimov, after calming from my infinite burst of laughter, is that there is nothing in poor Isaac's head, or perhaps there is "an infinite sea of nothingness". Thank you Mr. Laughter. Maybe I should read more of Asimov's material for the comedy. You do know that the name 'Isaac' means 'laughter', don't you?
Anyway, Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) had a "plague in his head" and in his heart like leprosy (Leviticus 13:44). I'm sure his views on life and death changed in 1992 when he went to hell. Poor Isaac's soul is now in torment in hell. He is being tormented in the flame of hell and desires to be comforted. And in addition to that he wishes to have someone sent to his family with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and testify unto them, lest they also go to the same place.
Luke 16:19-31 - There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Scientific Creationism
Like I said before "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris puts creation and evolution side by side and looks at how and where each one does and does not fit in with well known and proven facts of science. Of course, it is creation that fits more perfectly. The book is a very good book. We would like to see the evolutionist answer to the evidence therein. There are only a couple of problems with this book. The biggest problem for the ordinary person would be that in the chapter on the age of the earth, he goes into more detail and technical information than necessary. It is really enough to say simply that dating methods can not be trusted because we can not assume that uniformitarianism is correct. And at the end of the "Old or Young" chapter, he gives a very unnecessary but yet complicated Algebra equation dealing with the proposed population of the earth if man has been here for a million years or more. Then, in his last chapter, "Creation According To Scripture", is perhaps the most important thing in the whole issue of scientific creationism; that is the Biblical references to the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy.
Psalms 102:25-26 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Romans 7:21-25 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
I had said before that an evolutionist should read two books; After Its Kind and The Collapse of Evolution. I would say at this point that an evolutionist should at least read any one good book on the subject. Naturally, the evolutionist would suggest that we Christians read evolution material. And I am not opposed to the idea of reading something suggested by an evolutionist. The problem is that anything written and promoted by evolutionists will be one sided, while the material that I have been reading presents the principles of both sides. So while I am willing to read some evolution material, I am already getting the evolution material. On the other hand, the evolutionist who will not read creationist material doesn't get all the information needed to make an intelligent evaluation of the issue. This is because of several things. The first problem is that Evolutionists assume evolution to be a fact at the start. Then, they have a great lack of understanding of creation principles. And further, they interpret the facts of science and other 'evidences' with a bias to support evolution. Also, they sometimes leave out evidence that favors creation. And finally, they believe that just because they are ignorant of certain things, those things could not possibly be true. For example, since they don't know there is a God, Almighty creator of the universe, there couldn't possibly one. For example, since they have not been "born of the Spirit" of God (John 3:5), it is impossible that anyone else has been Spiritually born and become a new creature in Christ. Since they don't know God and have a personal relationship with him, they think it is impossible that I do. The whole evolution position is ridiculous and based on ignorance.
The Blind Watchmaker
The Evolutionist. When I told him that I am getting the evolution material in the creationist books that I am reading, he said that he doubted that. He did say that he had read "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or By Creation?" (by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) and had also looked through a book called "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. [Having checked into these two books I found that they unfortunately are not sufficient to refute evolution by teaching creation. He has not done enough research to know the evidence for creation and against evolution.] And he suggested that I read some books by Richard Dawkins to be sure that I really understand evolution. I have obtained "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker".
So I thought I would make a few comments concerning this book The Blind Watchmaker. Richard (the Deluded and Blind Hearted) Dawkins states on the first page of his preface that "The problem is complexity of design. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. This amount of complex design cries out for an explanation." Then, on the next page, he says, "the Darwinian world-view is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence." Since Dawkins admits apparent design, you should be able to see right away what he is going to do. He is going to take away from you the obvious truth in order to teach you a lie.
I am only 50 pages into his book and have seen several times that he can't make his mind up whether we were designed or not. He is very confused. On page 5, he says, "the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics". Yet at the same time (in the same sentence even) he says that all appearances are to the contrary. Hence he has to lie and tell you that the obvious truth is a lie. He calls natural selection 'the blind watchmaker' and says that natural selection is the explanation for the existence of all life and that while natural selection has no purpose in mind, it deceives us by giving "apparently purposeful form of all life". Well, apparently, natural selection is a very deceptive process which can not be trusted as an explanation for life. [Actually, evolution would be the purpose of natural selection (as my wife said) if it were true.]
"We are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated, crafted design. This is probably the most powerful reason for the belief, held by the vast majority of people that have ever lived, in some kind of deity." [Preface, page xii.]
It is so obvious to any person who will actually use that grey mass inside his head that life and the universe were created that you must stretch your imagination and deceive yourself in order to not believe in the Creator. You have to be educated out of your belief in Almighty God. In fact, Dawkins also says, "it took a very large leap of the imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that there is another way". Absolutely. That really describes evolution. Evolution is a very large leap of the imagination. Evolution is so far out into never never land with Peter Pan and Tinker Bell that Dawkins says on page xi, "It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and find it hard to believe". Absolutely.
It is absolutely true that the human brain was designed to not understand Darwinism and to not believe it. The Bible says so. Romans 1:19-24 says "That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts."
Evolutionists have ignored the revelation of God that "God hath shewed unto them". They are without excuse. They knew God. They glorified him not. They were not thankful to God. They are vain in their imaginations. They have a foolish darkened heart. They have made fools of themselves. They need a change of heart.
Post Note:
Any really honest person has to admit that there is design in the creation no matter how it came about. Creation is the proper word. If Evolution were true then Evolution by natural selection is the Creator. There is design in the creation; not just apparent design. The creation has design. That is an absolute truth. The problem for the evolutionist is to admit the design in creation and still not believe in the designer. The only answer is to lie about the design. "It is not really design; it is just apparent design." "The Watchmaker is blind." As Dawkins says (page 5, The Blind Watchmaker), "A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs and plans with a future purpose in mind". Natural Selection, however, according to Dawkins, is deceptive, giving the appearance of design which is not really there. Natural Selection and Evolution is a lie. The True Watchmaker is God the Creator of the Universe and the Author of life.
The Alexandrian Cult Mentality (Part Two)
October 8, 1993
Brother Mark,
I am not interested in wasting time, yours or mine, but I must answer your letter. There are some things added to this letter, not stated in my first letter, and there are some things that you misunderstood. I trust that you will pray for the Holy Spirit to give you understanding as you read this letter. And I pray that the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth. (John 16:13) [By the way, my ‘central issue’ is THE TRUTH of any doctrine. I trust that this letter will not be a waste of your time, and I’ll not write to you, again, on this subject except by your request.] “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” (2 Timothy 2:7)
I believe in the words of the Authorized King James Version. Believing THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK saved me. I did not know, when I received Jesus as my saviour, in May 1981, that there were such differences in versions of the Bible. I believed BY FAITH AND BY A SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the A V is the word of God, without error, and therefore the words of truth, i.e. the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice. As I have read and studied the A V, in the past five years, and read completely through it four or five times, there has been and still is A SPIRITUAL WITNESS TO BELIEVE WHAT THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK SAY. In studying the difference between the versions, THAT WITNESS TELLS ME EVERY TIME TO BE-LIEVE WHAT THE A V SAYS where others differ from it. So, I believe BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY that God wrote infallibly in the original Hebrew and Greek writings and that He, through copies and translations, preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7), and what GOD HAD IN MIND WHEN HE WROTE PROVERBS 22:20-21 is the preservation of an infallible authority (the certainty of the words of truth). I know that fallible men copied and translated the scriptures, but fallible men also wrote the original scriptures. Your education and /or my education on textual criticism & manuscript evidence could be false evidence made to order to prove what someone wanted to prove, just as possible as someone producing a Greek manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 made to order to get Erasmus to put it in his text. And IT IS MORE REASONABLE TO, BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY, BELIEVE IN THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURAL INERRANCY THAN TO, BY FAITH IN AN UNAVAILABLE AUTHORITY, BELIEVE THAT GOD WROTE SOMETHING INFALLIBLE WITHOUT PRESERVING INERRANCY. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition ... MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT THROUGH YOUR TRADITION” (Mark 7:8,9,13)
I did not say (in person nor by letter) that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals. What I said is that when the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, He is not saying, “The original writings were given by inspiration of God”. The scriptures that the Holy Spirit, THE AUTHOR OF THE SCRIPTURE, is speaking of are the scriptures that were available to Paul and Timothy, which were not the originals. (What I meant that I thought you agreed with is that Timothy did not have the originals.) “Scripture” (vs. 16) does not mean ‘only the originals’ or Timothy could not have known the holy scriptures (vs. 15). Knowing that scripture is something that is available, I believe that the scripture that God has provided for me (in English) “is given by inspiration of God”. Since scripture does not mean ‘only the originals’ 2 Timothy 3:16 is less evidence for the originals being inerrant than the present scripture being inerrant. Defining ‘scripture’ as ‘the originals’ takes the word out of context every time it appears in the Bible.
I never said that the King James Bible is the only manifestation of the Word of God. I say, since the originals, there has always been a pure, inerrant, infallible, available manifestation of the word of God. Included in the history of the pure word of God are: Old Testament Hebrew, Old Testament Syriac, Greek New Testament, Old Syriac (Pheshitto), Old Latin (not Jerome’s), Martin Luther’s German Bible, and the Authorized King James Version. You see I know that Isaiah and Paul did not use the A V. They believed the scripture that God gave to them (Acts 24:14). The A V has been translated into many other languages. And what you call the best Greek manuscripts are not the best Greek manuscripts. You just believed what some man told you because he was ‘educated’ and you assumed that he was telling the truth. Any edition of the A V will do just fine. Your mention of the various editions makes me wonder if you know what the differences in the A V editions are. There were some changes in the spelling of some words, corrections of typographical errors, and some minor changes in the wording in some places, which did not corrupt the text!
I have a hang-up concerning the 20th century definition and usage of ‘imitation’? Really? Nay, but that is the hang-up of the ‘revision’ committees from 1881-2000 A.D. Did you not say, “The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English, incomprehensible at many points”? Yet to defend the NASV reading, you are using archaic Greek! You said, “The choice of the word was based upon a human understanding of what the word meant to Paul as he wrote in Greek and an accurate translation of that meaning in English”. I BELIEVE THAT. BUT I’LL NOT ACCEPT A HUMAN UNDERSTANDING WHEN GOD HAS GIVEN ME A SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING. AND I WON’T SETTLE FOR WHAT PAUL MEANT AS HE WROTE IN GREEK WHEN I HAVE WHAT GOD MEANT WHEN HE WROTE IN ENGLISH.
You’re right that the question is not whether the A V is different from the NASV (or any other version). But the statement that “The question is which translation reflects the oldest and best readings” is a human understanding that you were taught by some man. The best readings to you is a matter of your opinion based on your education. (Remember what I said about our education on page 1.) The question is: IS THERE AN INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY AVAILABLE TODAY? That is the question. AND THE ANSWER IS THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF MY FIRST LETTER. IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT PROVERBS 22:20-21; PSALM 119:41-43; 12:6-7; AND 1 CORINTHIANS 5:6,8 SAY, THEN, THE DIFFERENCES THAT I LISTED WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU. BUT YOU BELIEVE YOUR EDUCATION INSTEAD OF BELIEVING THE WORD(S) THAT GOD CALLED YOU TO PREACH. THEREFORE, YOU MERELY DEFEND YOUR POSITION WITH YOUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING INSTEAD OF FACING THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE OBVIOUS ERRORS IN THE NASV (AND OTHER VERSIONS) THAT YOU WON’T DEAL WITH SENSIBLY BECAUSE YOU HOLD THE TRADITION OF MEN. THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT THERE IS EVEN A SINGLE ERROR IN THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. What some man taught you about 1 John 5:7 not being genuine means nothing. I gave evidence for 1 John 5:7 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs on page 2 of my first letter that you did not answer. The word ‘baptize’ is not an error, for it is defined as immersion in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:10-12. A Christian is condemned for walking after the flesh; therefore, Romans 8:1 is not an error. Condemned does not mean ‘condemned to hell’ if the passage does not say ‘condemned to hell’. Acts 27:16 is really a silly example of an ‘incomprehensible’ passage. In verse 4, “we sailed under Cyprus” and in verse 7, “we sailed under Crete”. Then, verse 16 says, “running under a certain island”. They sailed south of Cyprus, south of Crete, and sailed south of the island called Clauda. Oh, how archaic to use the word ‘running’ when we really mean sailing! (Is your car running? Is your refrigerator running?) Just because you don’t understand the use of the word ‘ghost’ in the Bible does not make it an error. And a demon or evil spirit impersonating a departed person is not a ghost. He is impersonating a ghost.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY:
You believe that the original writings of God were inerrant without any scriptural proof and therefore by faith. You believe that the inerrancy of the scripture was not preserved without any scriptural proof. You believe that there is no final and absolute authority for Christians. You believe that to understand the Bible, you must search the original manuscripts, which cannot be done since they are not available. You believe that education and scholarship are a higher authority than the Bible.
I believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, with “scripture” defined in 2 Timothy 3:15 as available scripture. I’ve found that the Bible example for us to follow is to believe the scripture (John 2:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). I believe the scripture is the word of truth as it calls itself. I believe the original scripture and the available scripture are inerrant. If not, then, the scripture would not serve God’s purpose in writing (Proverbs 22:20-21; Psalm 119:41-43). I believe God preserved the purity of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7). I believe the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that to understand the Bible, you must believe what it says, search the scriptures, comparing scripture with scripture (comparing Bible verses with Bible verses by word association). See 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and John 6:63. I believe the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant Bible because: 1) There are obvious errors in the others (2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; Galatians 5:4; Matthew 5:22) and 2) All the while that A V critics strain at gnats and swallow camels, there is still not one proven error in its text.
Following the Lord’s example, a man called by God should preach and teach “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The Lord gave us our authority for edification (2 Corinthians 10:8). Paul told Titus to “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Make full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5).
You say that I am loyal to texts and translations, which have been shown to be faulty. I am loyal to the Authorized Version of the Bible. Where has the text of the A V been shown to be faulty? Certainly not anything that you have shown. Where is it faulty? I don’t believe the A V has any errors. If I’m wrong, please, help me. Teach me. Prove one error in the A V text.
I have not dealt with the simple issue that we do not have one manuscript, which is in complete agreement with another because it means nothing. So, what? We do not have the originals either; yet, you believe that they are inerrant. Who needs an exact duplication of the autographic text? The English text is far superior to it.
It is not a matter of holding my translation above any other. It is a matter of exalting the word of God to its proper place. “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow” (Philippians 2:10). “And his name is called The Word of God” (Revelation 19:13). “Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psalm 138:2). “In God will I praise his word” (Psalm 56:10). The word of God is “him with whom we have to do” (Hebrews 4:12-13).
You may still say, if you so choose, that I have written nothing that supports my assertion that the KJV is the inspired translation of the Word of God, although I have (combining my two letters) given ample proof, for any man who believes what the Bible says, that the Authorized King James Version is the preserved, inerrant word of God, and therefore it is the infallible and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Also, nothing you have written sup-ports your belief that the original scriptures were inerrant. And nothing you have written supports your belief that the A V has errors or is incomprehensible. If a man studies the Bible by the Bible method, all the words are plain and right (Proverbs 8:8-9).
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully” (Jeremiah 23:28). “Every man’s word shall be his burden; FOR YE HAVE PERVERTED THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD” (Jeremiah 23:36). “Is not my word like as a fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29) “And my speech was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).
WITH LOVE,
YOUR BROTHER IN CHRIST,
Gary N Alford
Galatians 6:6
[Of course, I never heard from him again.]
Brother Mark,
I am not interested in wasting time, yours or mine, but I must answer your letter. There are some things added to this letter, not stated in my first letter, and there are some things that you misunderstood. I trust that you will pray for the Holy Spirit to give you understanding as you read this letter. And I pray that the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth. (John 16:13) [By the way, my ‘central issue’ is THE TRUTH of any doctrine. I trust that this letter will not be a waste of your time, and I’ll not write to you, again, on this subject except by your request.] “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.” (2 Timothy 2:7)
I believe in the words of the Authorized King James Version. Believing THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK saved me. I did not know, when I received Jesus as my saviour, in May 1981, that there were such differences in versions of the Bible. I believed BY FAITH AND BY A SPIRITUAL WITNESS that the A V is the word of God, without error, and therefore the words of truth, i.e. the infallible authority in all matters of faith and practice. As I have read and studied the A V, in the past five years, and read completely through it four or five times, there has been and still is A SPIRITUAL WITNESS TO BELIEVE WHAT THE WORDS OF THAT BOOK SAY. In studying the difference between the versions, THAT WITNESS TELLS ME EVERY TIME TO BE-LIEVE WHAT THE A V SAYS where others differ from it. So, I believe BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY that God wrote infallibly in the original Hebrew and Greek writings and that He, through copies and translations, preserved the purity and inerrancy of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7), and what GOD HAD IN MIND WHEN HE WROTE PROVERBS 22:20-21 is the preservation of an infallible authority (the certainty of the words of truth). I know that fallible men copied and translated the scriptures, but fallible men also wrote the original scriptures. Your education and /or my education on textual criticism & manuscript evidence could be false evidence made to order to prove what someone wanted to prove, just as possible as someone producing a Greek manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 made to order to get Erasmus to put it in his text. And IT IS MORE REASONABLE TO, BY FAITH IN AN AVAILABLE AUTHORITY, BELIEVE IN THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURAL INERRANCY THAN TO, BY FAITH IN AN UNAVAILABLE AUTHORITY, BELIEVE THAT GOD WROTE SOMETHING INFALLIBLE WITHOUT PRESERVING INERRANCY. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, AFTER THE TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8). “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men ... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition ... MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE EFFECT THROUGH YOUR TRADITION” (Mark 7:8,9,13)
I did not say (in person nor by letter) that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals. What I said is that when the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, He is not saying, “The original writings were given by inspiration of God”. The scriptures that the Holy Spirit, THE AUTHOR OF THE SCRIPTURE, is speaking of are the scriptures that were available to Paul and Timothy, which were not the originals. (What I meant that I thought you agreed with is that Timothy did not have the originals.) “Scripture” (vs. 16) does not mean ‘only the originals’ or Timothy could not have known the holy scriptures (vs. 15). Knowing that scripture is something that is available, I believe that the scripture that God has provided for me (in English) “is given by inspiration of God”. Since scripture does not mean ‘only the originals’ 2 Timothy 3:16 is less evidence for the originals being inerrant than the present scripture being inerrant. Defining ‘scripture’ as ‘the originals’ takes the word out of context every time it appears in the Bible.
I never said that the King James Bible is the only manifestation of the Word of God. I say, since the originals, there has always been a pure, inerrant, infallible, available manifestation of the word of God. Included in the history of the pure word of God are: Old Testament Hebrew, Old Testament Syriac, Greek New Testament, Old Syriac (Pheshitto), Old Latin (not Jerome’s), Martin Luther’s German Bible, and the Authorized King James Version. You see I know that Isaiah and Paul did not use the A V. They believed the scripture that God gave to them (Acts 24:14). The A V has been translated into many other languages. And what you call the best Greek manuscripts are not the best Greek manuscripts. You just believed what some man told you because he was ‘educated’ and you assumed that he was telling the truth. Any edition of the A V will do just fine. Your mention of the various editions makes me wonder if you know what the differences in the A V editions are. There were some changes in the spelling of some words, corrections of typographical errors, and some minor changes in the wording in some places, which did not corrupt the text!
I have a hang-up concerning the 20th century definition and usage of ‘imitation’? Really? Nay, but that is the hang-up of the ‘revision’ committees from 1881-2000 A.D. Did you not say, “The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English, incomprehensible at many points”? Yet to defend the NASV reading, you are using archaic Greek! You said, “The choice of the word was based upon a human understanding of what the word meant to Paul as he wrote in Greek and an accurate translation of that meaning in English”. I BELIEVE THAT. BUT I’LL NOT ACCEPT A HUMAN UNDERSTANDING WHEN GOD HAS GIVEN ME A SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING. AND I WON’T SETTLE FOR WHAT PAUL MEANT AS HE WROTE IN GREEK WHEN I HAVE WHAT GOD MEANT WHEN HE WROTE IN ENGLISH.
You’re right that the question is not whether the A V is different from the NASV (or any other version). But the statement that “The question is which translation reflects the oldest and best readings” is a human understanding that you were taught by some man. The best readings to you is a matter of your opinion based on your education. (Remember what I said about our education on page 1.) The question is: IS THERE AN INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY AVAILABLE TODAY? That is the question. AND THE ANSWER IS THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF MY FIRST LETTER. IF YOU BELIEVED WHAT PROVERBS 22:20-21; PSALM 119:41-43; 12:6-7; AND 1 CORINTHIANS 5:6,8 SAY, THEN, THE DIFFERENCES THAT I LISTED WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO YOU. BUT YOU BELIEVE YOUR EDUCATION INSTEAD OF BELIEVING THE WORD(S) THAT GOD CALLED YOU TO PREACH. THEREFORE, YOU MERELY DEFEND YOUR POSITION WITH YOUR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING INSTEAD OF FACING THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE ARE OBVIOUS ERRORS IN THE NASV (AND OTHER VERSIONS) THAT YOU WON’T DEAL WITH SENSIBLY BECAUSE YOU HOLD THE TRADITION OF MEN. THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT THERE IS EVEN A SINGLE ERROR IN THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. What some man taught you about 1 John 5:7 not being genuine means nothing. I gave evidence for 1 John 5:7 in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs on page 2 of my first letter that you did not answer. The word ‘baptize’ is not an error, for it is defined as immersion in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:10-12. A Christian is condemned for walking after the flesh; therefore, Romans 8:1 is not an error. Condemned does not mean ‘condemned to hell’ if the passage does not say ‘condemned to hell’. Acts 27:16 is really a silly example of an ‘incomprehensible’ passage. In verse 4, “we sailed under Cyprus” and in verse 7, “we sailed under Crete”. Then, verse 16 says, “running under a certain island”. They sailed south of Cyprus, south of Crete, and sailed south of the island called Clauda. Oh, how archaic to use the word ‘running’ when we really mean sailing! (Is your car running? Is your refrigerator running?) Just because you don’t understand the use of the word ‘ghost’ in the Bible does not make it an error. And a demon or evil spirit impersonating a departed person is not a ghost. He is impersonating a ghost.
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY:
You believe that the original writings of God were inerrant without any scriptural proof and therefore by faith. You believe that the inerrancy of the scripture was not preserved without any scriptural proof. You believe that there is no final and absolute authority for Christians. You believe that to understand the Bible, you must search the original manuscripts, which cannot be done since they are not available. You believe that education and scholarship are a higher authority than the Bible.
I believe that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”, with “scripture” defined in 2 Timothy 3:15 as available scripture. I’ve found that the Bible example for us to follow is to believe the scripture (John 2:22; 1 Thessalonians 2:13, etc.). I believe the scripture is the word of truth as it calls itself. I believe the original scripture and the available scripture are inerrant. If not, then, the scripture would not serve God’s purpose in writing (Proverbs 22:20-21; Psalm 119:41-43). I believe God preserved the purity of the words of the Lord (Psalm 12:6-7). I believe the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I believe that to understand the Bible, you must believe what it says, search the scriptures, comparing scripture with scripture (comparing Bible verses with Bible verses by word association). See 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 and John 6:63. I believe the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant Bible because: 1) There are obvious errors in the others (2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; Galatians 5:4; Matthew 5:22) and 2) All the while that A V critics strain at gnats and swallow camels, there is still not one proven error in its text.
Following the Lord’s example, a man called by God should preach and teach “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29). The Lord gave us our authority for edification (2 Corinthians 10:8). Paul told Titus to “speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). Make full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5).
You say that I am loyal to texts and translations, which have been shown to be faulty. I am loyal to the Authorized Version of the Bible. Where has the text of the A V been shown to be faulty? Certainly not anything that you have shown. Where is it faulty? I don’t believe the A V has any errors. If I’m wrong, please, help me. Teach me. Prove one error in the A V text.
I have not dealt with the simple issue that we do not have one manuscript, which is in complete agreement with another because it means nothing. So, what? We do not have the originals either; yet, you believe that they are inerrant. Who needs an exact duplication of the autographic text? The English text is far superior to it.
It is not a matter of holding my translation above any other. It is a matter of exalting the word of God to its proper place. “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow” (Philippians 2:10). “And his name is called The Word of God” (Revelation 19:13). “Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psalm 138:2). “In God will I praise his word” (Psalm 56:10). The word of God is “him with whom we have to do” (Hebrews 4:12-13).
You may still say, if you so choose, that I have written nothing that supports my assertion that the KJV is the inspired translation of the Word of God, although I have (combining my two letters) given ample proof, for any man who believes what the Bible says, that the Authorized King James Version is the preserved, inerrant word of God, and therefore it is the infallible and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Also, nothing you have written sup-ports your belief that the original scriptures were inerrant. And nothing you have written supports your belief that the A V has errors or is incomprehensible. If a man studies the Bible by the Bible method, all the words are plain and right (Proverbs 8:8-9).
“He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully” (Jeremiah 23:28). “Every man’s word shall be his burden; FOR YE HAVE PERVERTED THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD” (Jeremiah 23:36). “Is not my word like as a fire?” (Jeremiah 23:29) “And my speech was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).
WITH LOVE,
YOUR BROTHER IN CHRIST,
Gary N Alford
Galatians 6:6
[Of course, I never heard from him again.]
The Alexandrian Cult Mentality
The following correspondence between myself (Gary N Alford) and Mark A. Ellis (a typical Alexandrian Cult member) who, in the fall of 1993, was the pastor of _____ Baptist Church in Wylie, Texas will display the Bible believer’s solid foundation for believing that the Authorized King James Version is the inerrant, infallible word of God and the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. And the following will also display the typical insanity and the utter stupidity of the brainwashed fool who is spoiled “through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men” (Colossians 2:8), “making the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13)
September 24, 1993
Brother Mark,
When I began our conversation on the Bible, I started with the statement in your statement of faith under the heading of THE SCRIPTURES. I have two questions concerning that statement. 1) Is the Bible the scriptures? (In other words, if the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?) 2) Since you believe that only the originals were without error, shouldn’t your written statement say, “ the Bible was without error ” instead of “ is without error ”? You did say that all translations have errors. (In other words, why use the present tense in your printed statement and then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.)
When I gave Proverbs 22:20-21 as God’s reason for writing the scriptures, you said that was good. But when I explained that if that is the reason for God writing the scriptures, then, He would have preserved the inerrancy of the scriptures so that we can still be certain of the words of truth, you said that I was making a humanistic assumption.
When I last spoke to you (on the telephone), you said that the reason you believe the originals were inerrant is because the scriptures were God-breathed and God would not breath out error. I think I explained that the scriptures of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are not the originals. I think you agreed. Besides that, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say anything about inerrancy at all. By using that verse for inerrancy, you are making a bigger assumption than I am.
In fact, when I read Proverbs 22:20-21, Psalms 119:41-43, and Psalm 12:6-7, the only thing I’m assuming is that the words of the King James Bible are the words of truth and that those words mean exactly what they say. And if Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (We can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean? I asked you that in person and you never answered the question. To make it absolutely clear, Paul said, “ Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ” (I Corinthians 5:6) Then, in verse 8, he said, Let us keep the feast with the UNLEAVENED BREAD OF TRUTH.
When I mentioned the substitution of the word ‘imitators’ for the word ‘followers’ in I Corinthians 4:16 and 11:1, you said that I just have a problem with the word ‘imitate’. You’re right; I do. Do you have any idea why I have a problem with it? Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ? Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil & Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ? While the word ‘imitate’ could possibly mean follow, it is clear that it could also mean mimic, mock, and counterfeit. The word ‘followers’ is obviously more clear and easier to understand (which is the claimed reason for the RSV, ASV, NIV, NASV, etc.). Now, with this in mind, why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’? Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ? The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the A.V. than in the NASV, NKJV, etc. There are more on page 2.
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
3. Elhanan killed Goliath
(2 Samuel 21:19)
KING JAMES BIBLE
Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath
4. Mark 1:2 is “written in Isaiah the prophet" (NSAV)
Mark 1:2 is “written in the prophets” (KJV) (See Malachi 3:1)
5. There is no condemnation for Christians (Including those who walk not after the Spirit, but after the flesh)(NASV)
There is no condemnation to Christians who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (KJV)
6. A Christian does not need to study the word of truth to be approved unto God, neither should he make proper divisions in the word of truth (NASV)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV)
7. Once you are in Christ, you could be cut apart from Christ (you can lose your salvtion) (NASV)
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the law” (you were not saved in the first place)(KJV)
8. The proofs of Christ’s resurrection were convincing, but not infallible (a problem with the word 'infallible'?) (NASV)
The proofs of Christ’s resurrection are “infallible proofs”.
(KJV)
9. It is a sin to be angry (Matthew 5:22), so, Jesus is a sinner (John 2:13-16)(NASV)
It is a sin to be angry “without a cause”, so, Jesus is not a sinner (John 2:13-16)(KJV)
10. Let’s take the Lord out of his own book. (NASV)
Let’s leave the Lord in His Book (KJV)(1 Corinthians 15:47)
Should I John 5:7 be in the Bible? “Yea, hath God said?”
The Trinitarian Bible Society of London attributes the blotting out of the verse to Adamantius Origen. The Society points out that Origen had a tremendous influence over the “transmission of the Greek text” in the period in which most ancient copies were written. Origen revised the Greek texts in Egypt and Palestine.
If the verse was invented and inserted, why wasn’t the Matthew 28:19 formula used? It would have been easier to get the verse to pass as genuine if it said, “ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ”.
With 1 John 5:7 omitted, you have in the text “witnesses” that are masculine with three neuter nouns, and these three masculine witnesses agree as one neuter witness. THE GENDERS DON’T MATCH.
However, with the verse retained, you have two masculine objects to get the masculine witnesses. Furthermore, we know that the Holy Spirit is a male person (John 14:16-17; 16:13-15), so, even as a neuter gender, He would be included in the Trinity, for He is a member of the Trinity. According to the “power of attraction” in Greek syntax, the masculines in the group control the gender over a neuter connected with it.
John Gill says that Fulgentius cites the verse in 510 A.D. Jerome cited the verse in his epistle to Eustochium (450 A.D.) and wanted to know why it was excluded from some texts. Athanasius quotes it in 350 A.D. Cyprian quoted it in 250 A.D. Tertullian quotes it around 200 A.D. The A.V. translators had Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza witnessing to the verse and they also had four Waldensian Bibles, which contained the verse. Other witnesses are Manuscript 61 (1500A.D.), Miniscule 88 (1150 A.D.), Wianburgensis (750 A.D.), Old Latin (200 A.D.), Tatian (180 A.D.), and Old Syriac (170 A.D.). In conclusion, by considering the witnesses for and against the verse, you must believe that the verse is genuine or not by faith. The only other evidence that I’m aware of is the statements made in the three paragraphs previous to this one.
Please, respond by answering the seven questions on page one of this letter, answering the verse comparison above, and also, please, send me a list of the other mistakes in the King James Bible.
Gary N Alford
[Note: As I now follow with Mr. Ellis’ response letter, I feel it to be appropriate to add some comments here and there. These notes will be put in brackets. As you read the following, keep in mind that I asked him to answer seven questions, most of which he did not.
1. If the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?
2. Why use the present tense in your printed statement, and, then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.
3. If Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (we can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean?
4. Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ?
5. Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil and Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ?
6. Why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’?
7. Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ?]
September 30, 1993
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your letter. It is obvious that you took some time in writing it, and I appreciate the effort you went through. Your letter contains lots of accusing, inflammatory rhetoric, which neither poses nor answers questions. They merely add gas to the fire. However, what you sow you reap, and I’ve answered your questions with the same harshness. My purpose is to try to cut through the fog of false spirituality which envelopes your arguments. This is not my normal way of writing.
[Notice that what he calls “rhetoric”, “gas”, and “false spirituality” is a request for honesty (1st paragraph of my letter), a solid faith in what the Bible says (paragraphs 2,3, & 4), a recognition of Satanic inspiration (paragraph 5), a recognition of obvious errors in the NASV (page 2), and clear evidence for 1 John 5:7.]
1. The Bible is the Word of God; the Word of God never passes away. Therefore, even if I do not have the autographs, and even if both texts and translations (including the KJV) have been corrupted, God still knows His Word.
[I guess that is supposed to answer questions 1 and 2. My question (1 & 2) was: Why aren’t you honest enough to put in writing what you really believe? His answer: I am not going to admit that I lie (in my printed statement of faith). Instead I will just say some stupid nonsense in an effort to make you realize that you have no business arguing with someone with my education.]
2. In our conversation you did not state that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals, and I would not have agreed with that statement and know of no textual evidence to agree with it. But it does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.
[He misread my letter. I did not say that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals. When Paul spoke of the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3, he was speaking of a copy of the scriptures, not the originals. In other words, Paul did not consider the scriptures of his day (and Timothy) to be any less “given by inspiration of God” than the originals. He said, “It (2 Timothy 3:16) does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.” without explaining how. What the verse says is, “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Not one time in the Bible does the word ‘scripture’ mean ‘only the originals’. If 2 Timothy 3:16 directly attests to the perfect author-ship of the autographs, then it just as much directly attests to the perfect authorship of the scripture that I hold in my hand.]
3. The challenge you pose with Proverbs 22 is your problem, neither mine nor the Scriptures. Quite simply the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek; if you insist that I choose whether or not the KJV is what Solomon had in mind when he penned Proverbs 22, then the answer is that the KJV is not what Solomon has in mind. I could just as easily argue that he had the NASB in mind. Neither English nor the KJV existed. If you are going to coerce a defense of the KJV out of these verses, and if you are going to argue that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Word of God but is indeed the only manifestation of the Word of God, then we must throw away the KJV as a cheap imitation. Neither Isaiah nor Paul used the KJV. It is a recent arrival in the history of God’s people. Or we must come to some sort of understanding that the KJV is a recreation of the Word of God in English? What do we translate into other languages? The best Greek manuscripts dating back to the third and fourth centuries, or a 17th century translation (KJV) of a 16th century product of text criticism (TR)? Which edition of the KJV do we use? The words were changed as it went through various editions in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1762, 1769 and 1833. Did the Word of God change? Or did men’s translations of the manuscripts change?
[Notice that he still could not answer my 3rd question: What does Proverbs 22:20-21 mean?]
4. Your argument re: imitation is again couched not in lexical considerations, but in your hang-ups concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation. The Greek word in 1 Cor. 4:16 is transliterated mimetai, from the root word mimeomai. Liddell and Scott give the following translations for this word: to imitate, re-present, or portray. It was especially used in “mimicking” another’s actions. Scholars do not redefine Greek words based upon what the concept communicates to them, or based upon “cheap imitations”. The one who “inspired” this change in words wasn’t the devil (A highly illogical, inflammatory statement) nor do I imagine it was the Holy Spirit, since I don’t believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations in the sense that He chose word for word which words Eng-lash translators were to use. The choice of the word was based upon a human understanding of what the word meant to Paul as he wrote in Greek, and an accurate translation of that meaning in English.
Regarding your last sentence, “The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the AV than in the NASV”, this opens a real can of worms for you. The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English, incomprehensible at many points to the modern reader. In Acts 27, the KJV has Paul running under an island. This is truly a remarkable feat, unless we offer a translation, which is more accurate in that it better suits the language of our day. Imagine the joy short people feel when they read the KJV rendition of the Lord’s promise, “Lo, I am with you always”. “Lo” is only used by archaics. It was not used by Paul, and it is not used by Americans. The KJV is in many places an unclear and confusing translation. It is also inconsistent. Examine the exchange of nouns used to translate pneuma in Acts. Some places it is the Holy Spirit, and some places it is the Holy Ghost. Based upon this inconsistent translation by the KJV, I have had people tell me that based upon the inspired differentiation in this translation, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. Heresy! And if we want to use your argument concerning “imitation”, (The devil would love that translation) surely you know that there are no “ghosts”, only demons impersonating as departed people. Who else but the devil could have inspired the translators of the KJV to use a word that would one day have reference only to demons! I jest.
[He said I have a hang-up “concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation” and then said, “The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English”. Now, if I shouldn’t be concerned about 20th century definition and usage, then what’s all the hot air about the King James Version being archaic? (The man is self-contradictory.) Then, he tried to explain why the word ‘imitate’ was used after I had made it absolutely clear that ‘follow’ was a better choice for charity. Since he doesn’t “believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations”, then, he could not believe that all of the originals were inspired because every time a new testament writer quoted the old testament he had to translate from Hebrew to Greek!
He also said that “The KJV is in many places an unclear and con-fusing translation.” without giving me the list of verses. Also, notice again that he refuses to answer the rest of my questions: 4-7.]
5. Examples 3, 4, and 5 display that you are arguing the very point you are trying to prove. The question is not whether the KJV is different from the NASB. I know that already. The question is not whether we can use the KJV to measure the NASB. The question is which translation reflects the oldest and best readings. And I don’t trust the KJV as a guide. Regarding 2 Samuel, it is very clear since we do not have a single Hebrew manuscript, which contains the KJV reading, the translators of the KJV must have changed the Word of God to avoid possible confusion regarding who killed Goliath.
[Regarding 2 Samuel 21:19, it is very clear since David killed Goliath, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Therefore, we conclude that the A V has the correct reading and the NASV reading is an obvious error! ]
Regarding Mark 1:2, 35 early Greek manuscripts and early Christian writers support the reading translated in the NASB, 29 support that of the KJV. Both readings have good evidence. So who’s right? Do I just go along with a seventeenth century decision on that question because some people like it?
[Regarding Mark 1:2, the A V reading is supported by the fact that Mark 1:2 is not a quote from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1, which is “written in the prophets” but not “written in Isaiah the prophet”. So, again, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Another obvious error in the NASV! ]
Regarding Romans 8:1, the evidence is far more clear. The KJV here reflects a late corruption of the text by men who were troubled at the wonderful doctrine of security Paul asserted in the original. It reflects a conflation from 8:4. All the earlier manuscripts have had their contents corrupted by this phrase being inserted much later. I personally rejoice that the truths of grace have been restored to Romans 8:1 in the NASB, truths hidden in the corrupted text reflected in the KJV.
[Romans 8:1 is not a verse on “the wonderful doctrine of security”. The condemnation of a Christian who walks after the flesh is explained in Hebrews 12:5-11among other places. The NASV reading in Romans 8:1 states that any Christian will have no “chastening of the Lord” including those who walk after the flesh. For the third time, now, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! And as I forewarned, Mr. Ellis has displayed utter stupidity by not recognizing these errors.]
I don’t understand your point in verse six. [2 Timothy 2:15] Your statement in verse seven [Galatians 5:4] reflects a fundamental lack of understanding the argument of Galatians. I have no problem with the word “infallible” [Acts 1:3], but the Word of God does. The original Greek was reflected by the original meaning of infallible to the men translating in 1611, but their understanding of the word means exactly what we mean when we state that the arguments are convincing. If the proofs of the resurrection were infallible in the sense you mean, they would “infallibly” lead men to salvation every time they are used. That would be a lie.
[His statement regarding Galatians 5:4 reflects a fundamental lack of an ability to read plain English. In the A.V., Galatians 5:4 says that Christ has no effect on people who try to justify themselves by the law. In the NASV, the verse says that a person can be cut apart from Christ. So, now, for the fourth time, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! The readings of 2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; and Galatians 5:4 in the NASV are four obvious errors!
“Many infallible proofs” includes “above five hundred” witnesses (I Corinthians 15:1-8) and at least eleven saw him forty days eating and drinking with them and teaching them (Luke 24:13-48).
Mr. Ellis' statement is obvious nonsense. When the Bible says that the proofs of the resurrection are infallible, it means those proofs are perfect and without error. The King James Bible is also perfect and without error. But that doesn't mean it is believed every time it is preached. If what he said was true, then, nobody would ever leave a church lost and everyone in the service would be at the altar during the invitation, either getting saved, confessing sins, or praising God.
Also, if what he said were true, it would be just as true when the word `convincing' is used. However, people are convinced of things that are not true.
Under the law, a man could be put to death " at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6). In the case of the Lord's resurrection, we have, after nearly 2000 years, a written account that there were more than 500 witnesses who saw him and handled him (I John 1:1-3). The proofs of it are infallible, although some people are convinced otherwise.]
Regarding Matthew 5, I grant that the Greek word eike (without a cause) is an early reading, but there are numerous first century texts and commentaries, which do not have it. Your extrapolation based upon this verse, that it would make Jesus’ behavior sinful, is probably the best explanation of where it came from. People added to the Word of God to avoid a conflict in the behavior of Jesus. A simpler answer is to notice that the phrase for “being angry” is a nominative use of the present particle, ho orgizomenos. The present tense of the verb indicates denotes continuing action; that what Jesus was condemning was a predisposition of anger without possibility of forgiveness. It was arguments like your own, lacking understanding of Greek grammar, which caused men to add eike to the Word of God, an addition which has made its way into the KJV, showing yet another human corruption of the text.
[Again, Mr. Ellis is ignoring the simple facts of plain and clear English. When it comes to which English reading is true and which one is false, manuscript evidence is meaningless. The NASV makes anger a sin in Matthew 5:22. If anger is a sin, Jesus sinned in John 2:13-16. If Jesus was a sinner, then all of this is pointless and our faith is in vain anyway. Jesus did no sin. Matthew 5:22 in the NASV is another lie. Now, the count is five obvious errors in the NASV!]
Again, question ten misses the point. I’m not taking the Lord out of God’s word, merely out of the KJV (in this verse). I want to know if someone else added these words to the Word of God, placing themselves under a curse. Is it all right to add the Lord to any verse you please just because you want to put the Lord in more places in his own book? Athanasius, who lived from the late 200’s to the early 300’s, who was the strongest defender of the trinity and the Lordship of Christ of his generation, quotes the phrase as it appears in the NASB, not in the KJV. And I assure you he would never take the Lord out of his book. “Let’s take the Lord out of his own book” proves nothing. It doesn’t deal with the textual evidence. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric.
The speculations of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London are just that--speculations. There is not one shred of truth to what they are saying. I would speculate this is merely people grasping at any possible argument to support a translation whose textual base is defective.
Regarding 1 John 5:7, read the article you sent me again. Hills admits concerning the three Greek manuscripts which contain this reading that one was manufactured for Erasmus, and in the other two the Latin text is written into the margins of earlier Greek texts which did not have these words in the original. Did you read what I gave you? Hills admits that this verse was only found in the Latin versions, and has to appeal to the flimsy argument that “It was this usage which made men feel that this reading ought to be included in the Greek text”. Not God, men. Not the original Greek, but a translation. The evidence is not that the reading was “dropped out of the Greek New Testament but was preserved in the Latin”, but that it was a corruption which originated in the Latin and was forced upon the Greek New Testament by Catholics who were uptight that their translation (the Vulgate) had clear corruptions. It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in preserving something, which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.
[I had sent with my letter some information about 1 John 5:7 from “Believing Bible Study” by Edward Hills. I don’t remember or still have a copy of what he gave me. You could guess (judging by his letter) that it was probably worthless. Whatever he gave me and I gave him to read about it, he still failed to comment on four paragraphs of evidence for the verse on page 2 of my letter. Two of those paragraphs have to do with Greek grammar. He said, “It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in pre-serving something which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.” He said, “no other evidence” besides the providence of God after I listed 18 witnesses.]
I find the modern arguments for the accuracy of the KJV are identical to those the Catholics were using against the TR and the KJV in the 1500’s to support their favorite translation, the Vulgate. They and you are loyal to texts and translations, which have been shown to be faulty. But rather than admitting the obvious, those who disagree are bombarded with pious sounding arguments which in the end mean nothing. Most are circular. “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” So what? That’s the very point being debated.
[I have never said, “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” I said the NASV (et al) is wrong because it contains plain and clear errors.]
----> You have not dealt with the simple issue that we do not have one manuscript, which is in complete agreement with another; all differ. You have not told me which manuscript is the one, which maintains the exact duplication of the autographic text. The Textus Receptus and the resulting KJV are the products of conflation of fifteen different manuscripts, none of which were in agreement. Did the Word of God disappear until Erasmus put it back together again? Why should I hold your translation above any other?
----> I also get back to my point with you two weeks ago. My time is being consumed with witnessing and discipleship, all using the NASB and all evidencing the blessing of God. Your statement that if you were right would not this be an important issue is true if you are right. But nothing you have written supports the assertion that the KJV is the inspired translation of the Word of God, though I grant it is a usable and beneficial translation for people living in the 1600’s. I assume your letter is a garning of your best arguments, and if so please don’t waste my time on this subject again. If you are interested in growing in your Christian life and want to talk about relevant issues like impacting our increasingly pagan society with the gospel of Jesus Christ, I would love to work together with you for the sake of our Lord. But if the KJV is your central issue, you need to find someone who cares about what you care about. I have more important things to do.
Again, please forgive the forthrightness of my style in this letter. It is not my normal tone. Neither should you assume that I think of you anything other than fondness. I would look forward to seeing you again.
Your Brother in Christ,
Mark A. Ellis
2 Corinthians 7:2-4; 11:1-3;
2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9
September 24, 1993
Brother Mark,
When I began our conversation on the Bible, I started with the statement in your statement of faith under the heading of THE SCRIPTURES. I have two questions concerning that statement. 1) Is the Bible the scriptures? (In other words, if the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?) 2) Since you believe that only the originals were without error, shouldn’t your written statement say, “ the Bible was without error ” instead of “ is without error ”? You did say that all translations have errors. (In other words, why use the present tense in your printed statement and then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.)
When I gave Proverbs 22:20-21 as God’s reason for writing the scriptures, you said that was good. But when I explained that if that is the reason for God writing the scriptures, then, He would have preserved the inerrancy of the scriptures so that we can still be certain of the words of truth, you said that I was making a humanistic assumption.
When I last spoke to you (on the telephone), you said that the reason you believe the originals were inerrant is because the scriptures were God-breathed and God would not breath out error. I think I explained that the scriptures of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 are not the originals. I think you agreed. Besides that, 2 Timothy 3:16 doesn’t say anything about inerrancy at all. By using that verse for inerrancy, you are making a bigger assumption than I am.
In fact, when I read Proverbs 22:20-21, Psalms 119:41-43, and Psalm 12:6-7, the only thing I’m assuming is that the words of the King James Bible are the words of truth and that those words mean exactly what they say. And if Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (We can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean? I asked you that in person and you never answered the question. To make it absolutely clear, Paul said, “ Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ” (I Corinthians 5:6) Then, in verse 8, he said, Let us keep the feast with the UNLEAVENED BREAD OF TRUTH.
When I mentioned the substitution of the word ‘imitators’ for the word ‘followers’ in I Corinthians 4:16 and 11:1, you said that I just have a problem with the word ‘imitate’. You’re right; I do. Do you have any idea why I have a problem with it? Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ? Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil & Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ? While the word ‘imitate’ could possibly mean follow, it is clear that it could also mean mimic, mock, and counterfeit. The word ‘followers’ is obviously more clear and easier to understand (which is the claimed reason for the RSV, ASV, NIV, NASV, etc.). Now, with this in mind, why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’? Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ? The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the A.V. than in the NASV, NKJV, etc. There are more on page 2.
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
3. Elhanan killed Goliath
(2 Samuel 21:19)
KING JAMES BIBLE
Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath
4. Mark 1:2 is “written in Isaiah the prophet" (NSAV)
Mark 1:2 is “written in the prophets” (KJV) (See Malachi 3:1)
5. There is no condemnation for Christians (Including those who walk not after the Spirit, but after the flesh)(NASV)
There is no condemnation to Christians who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (KJV)
6. A Christian does not need to study the word of truth to be approved unto God, neither should he make proper divisions in the word of truth (NASV)
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV)
7. Once you are in Christ, you could be cut apart from Christ (you can lose your salvtion) (NASV)
“Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the law” (you were not saved in the first place)(KJV)
8. The proofs of Christ’s resurrection were convincing, but not infallible (a problem with the word 'infallible'?) (NASV)
The proofs of Christ’s resurrection are “infallible proofs”.
(KJV)
9. It is a sin to be angry (Matthew 5:22), so, Jesus is a sinner (John 2:13-16)(NASV)
It is a sin to be angry “without a cause”, so, Jesus is not a sinner (John 2:13-16)(KJV)
10. Let’s take the Lord out of his own book. (NASV)
Let’s leave the Lord in His Book (KJV)(1 Corinthians 15:47)
Should I John 5:7 be in the Bible? “Yea, hath God said?”
The Trinitarian Bible Society of London attributes the blotting out of the verse to Adamantius Origen. The Society points out that Origen had a tremendous influence over the “transmission of the Greek text” in the period in which most ancient copies were written. Origen revised the Greek texts in Egypt and Palestine.
If the verse was invented and inserted, why wasn’t the Matthew 28:19 formula used? It would have been easier to get the verse to pass as genuine if it said, “ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ”.
With 1 John 5:7 omitted, you have in the text “witnesses” that are masculine with three neuter nouns, and these three masculine witnesses agree as one neuter witness. THE GENDERS DON’T MATCH.
However, with the verse retained, you have two masculine objects to get the masculine witnesses. Furthermore, we know that the Holy Spirit is a male person (John 14:16-17; 16:13-15), so, even as a neuter gender, He would be included in the Trinity, for He is a member of the Trinity. According to the “power of attraction” in Greek syntax, the masculines in the group control the gender over a neuter connected with it.
John Gill says that Fulgentius cites the verse in 510 A.D. Jerome cited the verse in his epistle to Eustochium (450 A.D.) and wanted to know why it was excluded from some texts. Athanasius quotes it in 350 A.D. Cyprian quoted it in 250 A.D. Tertullian quotes it around 200 A.D. The A.V. translators had Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza witnessing to the verse and they also had four Waldensian Bibles, which contained the verse. Other witnesses are Manuscript 61 (1500A.D.), Miniscule 88 (1150 A.D.), Wianburgensis (750 A.D.), Old Latin (200 A.D.), Tatian (180 A.D.), and Old Syriac (170 A.D.). In conclusion, by considering the witnesses for and against the verse, you must believe that the verse is genuine or not by faith. The only other evidence that I’m aware of is the statements made in the three paragraphs previous to this one.
Please, respond by answering the seven questions on page one of this letter, answering the verse comparison above, and also, please, send me a list of the other mistakes in the King James Bible.
Gary N Alford
[Note: As I now follow with Mr. Ellis’ response letter, I feel it to be appropriate to add some comments here and there. These notes will be put in brackets. As you read the following, keep in mind that I asked him to answer seven questions, most of which he did not.
1. If the scriptures are only the originals, and not the Bible we presently have, why is the Bible under that heading?
2. Why use the present tense in your printed statement, and, then, use the past tense in your oral statement? The tenses should match.
3. If Proverbs 22:20-21 doesn’t mean what it says (we can know the certainty of the words of truth by what God has written), then, what does it mean?
4. Don’t you know that a Christian can be an imitator of Christ without being a follower of Christ?
5. Don’t you know that there are just enough similarities between the devil and Jesus Christ to show that he is an imitator of Christ but not a follower of Christ?
6. Why do the modern revision committees (having the Authorized Version on their tables) have a problem with the word ‘followers’?
7. Who but the devil would have inspired them to change the word to get verses that teach the Christian to follow the devil, by imitating Christ, without teaching the Christian to follow Christ?]
September 30, 1993
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your letter. It is obvious that you took some time in writing it, and I appreciate the effort you went through. Your letter contains lots of accusing, inflammatory rhetoric, which neither poses nor answers questions. They merely add gas to the fire. However, what you sow you reap, and I’ve answered your questions with the same harshness. My purpose is to try to cut through the fog of false spirituality which envelopes your arguments. This is not my normal way of writing.
[Notice that what he calls “rhetoric”, “gas”, and “false spirituality” is a request for honesty (1st paragraph of my letter), a solid faith in what the Bible says (paragraphs 2,3, & 4), a recognition of Satanic inspiration (paragraph 5), a recognition of obvious errors in the NASV (page 2), and clear evidence for 1 John 5:7.]
1. The Bible is the Word of God; the Word of God never passes away. Therefore, even if I do not have the autographs, and even if both texts and translations (including the KJV) have been corrupted, God still knows His Word.
[I guess that is supposed to answer questions 1 and 2. My question (1 & 2) was: Why aren’t you honest enough to put in writing what you really believe? His answer: I am not going to admit that I lie (in my printed statement of faith). Instead I will just say some stupid nonsense in an effort to make you realize that you have no business arguing with someone with my education.]
2. In our conversation you did not state that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals, and I would not have agreed with that statement and know of no textual evidence to agree with it. But it does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.
[He misread my letter. I did not say that 2 Timothy 3 was not in the originals. When Paul spoke of the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3, he was speaking of a copy of the scriptures, not the originals. In other words, Paul did not consider the scriptures of his day (and Timothy) to be any less “given by inspiration of God” than the originals. He said, “It (2 Timothy 3:16) does directly attest to the perfect authorship of the autographs.” without explaining how. What the verse says is, “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God”. Not one time in the Bible does the word ‘scripture’ mean ‘only the originals’. If 2 Timothy 3:16 directly attests to the perfect author-ship of the autographs, then it just as much directly attests to the perfect authorship of the scripture that I hold in my hand.]
3. The challenge you pose with Proverbs 22 is your problem, neither mine nor the Scriptures. Quite simply the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek; if you insist that I choose whether or not the KJV is what Solomon had in mind when he penned Proverbs 22, then the answer is that the KJV is not what Solomon has in mind. I could just as easily argue that he had the NASB in mind. Neither English nor the KJV existed. If you are going to coerce a defense of the KJV out of these verses, and if you are going to argue that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Word of God but is indeed the only manifestation of the Word of God, then we must throw away the KJV as a cheap imitation. Neither Isaiah nor Paul used the KJV. It is a recent arrival in the history of God’s people. Or we must come to some sort of understanding that the KJV is a recreation of the Word of God in English? What do we translate into other languages? The best Greek manuscripts dating back to the third and fourth centuries, or a 17th century translation (KJV) of a 16th century product of text criticism (TR)? Which edition of the KJV do we use? The words were changed as it went through various editions in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1762, 1769 and 1833. Did the Word of God change? Or did men’s translations of the manuscripts change?
[Notice that he still could not answer my 3rd question: What does Proverbs 22:20-21 mean?]
4. Your argument re: imitation is again couched not in lexical considerations, but in your hang-ups concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation. The Greek word in 1 Cor. 4:16 is transliterated mimetai, from the root word mimeomai. Liddell and Scott give the following translations for this word: to imitate, re-present, or portray. It was especially used in “mimicking” another’s actions. Scholars do not redefine Greek words based upon what the concept communicates to them, or based upon “cheap imitations”. The one who “inspired” this change in words wasn’t the devil (A highly illogical, inflammatory statement) nor do I imagine it was the Holy Spirit, since I don’t believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations in the sense that He chose word for word which words Eng-lash translators were to use. The choice of the word was based upon a human understanding of what the word meant to Paul as he wrote in Greek, and an accurate translation of that meaning in English.
Regarding your last sentence, “The two verses we are dealing with in this paragraph are obviously better readings and more clear in the AV than in the NASV”, this opens a real can of worms for you. The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English, incomprehensible at many points to the modern reader. In Acts 27, the KJV has Paul running under an island. This is truly a remarkable feat, unless we offer a translation, which is more accurate in that it better suits the language of our day. Imagine the joy short people feel when they read the KJV rendition of the Lord’s promise, “Lo, I am with you always”. “Lo” is only used by archaics. It was not used by Paul, and it is not used by Americans. The KJV is in many places an unclear and confusing translation. It is also inconsistent. Examine the exchange of nouns used to translate pneuma in Acts. Some places it is the Holy Spirit, and some places it is the Holy Ghost. Based upon this inconsistent translation by the KJV, I have had people tell me that based upon the inspired differentiation in this translation, there is a difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost. Heresy! And if we want to use your argument concerning “imitation”, (The devil would love that translation) surely you know that there are no “ghosts”, only demons impersonating as departed people. Who else but the devil could have inspired the translators of the KJV to use a word that would one day have reference only to demons! I jest.
[He said I have a hang-up “concerning the 20th century definition and usage of imitation” and then said, “The greatest argument against the use of the KJV is that it is archaic English”. Now, if I shouldn’t be concerned about 20th century definition and usage, then what’s all the hot air about the King James Version being archaic? (The man is self-contradictory.) Then, he tried to explain why the word ‘imitate’ was used after I had made it absolutely clear that ‘follow’ was a better choice for charity. Since he doesn’t “believe the Holy Spirit “inspired” translations”, then, he could not believe that all of the originals were inspired because every time a new testament writer quoted the old testament he had to translate from Hebrew to Greek!
He also said that “The KJV is in many places an unclear and con-fusing translation.” without giving me the list of verses. Also, notice again that he refuses to answer the rest of my questions: 4-7.]
5. Examples 3, 4, and 5 display that you are arguing the very point you are trying to prove. The question is not whether the KJV is different from the NASB. I know that already. The question is not whether we can use the KJV to measure the NASB. The question is which translation reflects the oldest and best readings. And I don’t trust the KJV as a guide. Regarding 2 Samuel, it is very clear since we do not have a single Hebrew manuscript, which contains the KJV reading, the translators of the KJV must have changed the Word of God to avoid possible confusion regarding who killed Goliath.
[Regarding 2 Samuel 21:19, it is very clear since David killed Goliath, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Therefore, we conclude that the A V has the correct reading and the NASV reading is an obvious error! ]
Regarding Mark 1:2, 35 early Greek manuscripts and early Christian writers support the reading translated in the NASB, 29 support that of the KJV. Both readings have good evidence. So who’s right? Do I just go along with a seventeenth century decision on that question because some people like it?
[Regarding Mark 1:2, the A V reading is supported by the fact that Mark 1:2 is not a quote from Isaiah. It is from Malachi 3:1, which is “written in the prophets” but not “written in Isaiah the prophet”. So, again, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! Another obvious error in the NASV! ]
Regarding Romans 8:1, the evidence is far more clear. The KJV here reflects a late corruption of the text by men who were troubled at the wonderful doctrine of security Paul asserted in the original. It reflects a conflation from 8:4. All the earlier manuscripts have had their contents corrupted by this phrase being inserted much later. I personally rejoice that the truths of grace have been restored to Romans 8:1 in the NASB, truths hidden in the corrupted text reflected in the KJV.
[Romans 8:1 is not a verse on “the wonderful doctrine of security”. The condemnation of a Christian who walks after the flesh is explained in Hebrews 12:5-11among other places. The NASV reading in Romans 8:1 states that any Christian will have no “chastening of the Lord” including those who walk after the flesh. For the third time, now, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! And as I forewarned, Mr. Ellis has displayed utter stupidity by not recognizing these errors.]
I don’t understand your point in verse six. [2 Timothy 2:15] Your statement in verse seven [Galatians 5:4] reflects a fundamental lack of understanding the argument of Galatians. I have no problem with the word “infallible” [Acts 1:3], but the Word of God does. The original Greek was reflected by the original meaning of infallible to the men translating in 1611, but their understanding of the word means exactly what we mean when we state that the arguments are convincing. If the proofs of the resurrection were infallible in the sense you mean, they would “infallibly” lead men to salvation every time they are used. That would be a lie.
[His statement regarding Galatians 5:4 reflects a fundamental lack of an ability to read plain English. In the A.V., Galatians 5:4 says that Christ has no effect on people who try to justify themselves by the law. In the NASV, the verse says that a person can be cut apart from Christ. So, now, for the fourth time, the A V reading is true and the NASV reading is false! The readings of 2 Samuel 21:19; Mark 1:2; Romans 8:1; and Galatians 5:4 in the NASV are four obvious errors!
“Many infallible proofs” includes “above five hundred” witnesses (I Corinthians 15:1-8) and at least eleven saw him forty days eating and drinking with them and teaching them (Luke 24:13-48).
Mr. Ellis' statement is obvious nonsense. When the Bible says that the proofs of the resurrection are infallible, it means those proofs are perfect and without error. The King James Bible is also perfect and without error. But that doesn't mean it is believed every time it is preached. If what he said was true, then, nobody would ever leave a church lost and everyone in the service would be at the altar during the invitation, either getting saved, confessing sins, or praising God.
Also, if what he said were true, it would be just as true when the word `convincing' is used. However, people are convinced of things that are not true.
Under the law, a man could be put to death " at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses" (Deuteronomy 17:6). In the case of the Lord's resurrection, we have, after nearly 2000 years, a written account that there were more than 500 witnesses who saw him and handled him (I John 1:1-3). The proofs of it are infallible, although some people are convinced otherwise.]
Regarding Matthew 5, I grant that the Greek word eike (without a cause) is an early reading, but there are numerous first century texts and commentaries, which do not have it. Your extrapolation based upon this verse, that it would make Jesus’ behavior sinful, is probably the best explanation of where it came from. People added to the Word of God to avoid a conflict in the behavior of Jesus. A simpler answer is to notice that the phrase for “being angry” is a nominative use of the present particle, ho orgizomenos. The present tense of the verb indicates denotes continuing action; that what Jesus was condemning was a predisposition of anger without possibility of forgiveness. It was arguments like your own, lacking understanding of Greek grammar, which caused men to add eike to the Word of God, an addition which has made its way into the KJV, showing yet another human corruption of the text.
[Again, Mr. Ellis is ignoring the simple facts of plain and clear English. When it comes to which English reading is true and which one is false, manuscript evidence is meaningless. The NASV makes anger a sin in Matthew 5:22. If anger is a sin, Jesus sinned in John 2:13-16. If Jesus was a sinner, then all of this is pointless and our faith is in vain anyway. Jesus did no sin. Matthew 5:22 in the NASV is another lie. Now, the count is five obvious errors in the NASV!]
Again, question ten misses the point. I’m not taking the Lord out of God’s word, merely out of the KJV (in this verse). I want to know if someone else added these words to the Word of God, placing themselves under a curse. Is it all right to add the Lord to any verse you please just because you want to put the Lord in more places in his own book? Athanasius, who lived from the late 200’s to the early 300’s, who was the strongest defender of the trinity and the Lordship of Christ of his generation, quotes the phrase as it appears in the NASB, not in the KJV. And I assure you he would never take the Lord out of his book. “Let’s take the Lord out of his own book” proves nothing. It doesn’t deal with the textual evidence. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric.
The speculations of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London are just that--speculations. There is not one shred of truth to what they are saying. I would speculate this is merely people grasping at any possible argument to support a translation whose textual base is defective.
Regarding 1 John 5:7, read the article you sent me again. Hills admits concerning the three Greek manuscripts which contain this reading that one was manufactured for Erasmus, and in the other two the Latin text is written into the margins of earlier Greek texts which did not have these words in the original. Did you read what I gave you? Hills admits that this verse was only found in the Latin versions, and has to appeal to the flimsy argument that “It was this usage which made men feel that this reading ought to be included in the Greek text”. Not God, men. Not the original Greek, but a translation. The evidence is not that the reading was “dropped out of the Greek New Testament but was preserved in the Latin”, but that it was a corruption which originated in the Latin and was forced upon the Greek New Testament by Catholics who were uptight that their translation (the Vulgate) had clear corruptions. It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in preserving something, which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.
[I had sent with my letter some information about 1 John 5:7 from “Believing Bible Study” by Edward Hills. I don’t remember or still have a copy of what he gave me. You could guess (judging by his letter) that it was probably worthless. Whatever he gave me and I gave him to read about it, he still failed to comment on four paragraphs of evidence for the verse on page 2 of my letter. Two of those paragraphs have to do with Greek grammar. He said, “It is depressing to see people appeal to the providence of God in pre-serving something which has no other evidence to support its authenticity.” He said, “no other evidence” besides the providence of God after I listed 18 witnesses.]
I find the modern arguments for the accuracy of the KJV are identical to those the Catholics were using against the TR and the KJV in the 1500’s to support their favorite translation, the Vulgate. They and you are loyal to texts and translations, which have been shown to be faulty. But rather than admitting the obvious, those who disagree are bombarded with pious sounding arguments which in the end mean nothing. Most are circular. “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” So what? That’s the very point being debated.
[I have never said, “Your translation must be wrong because it doesn’t agree with my translation.” I said the NASV (et al) is wrong because it contains plain and clear errors.]
----> You have not dealt with the simple issue that we do not have one manuscript, which is in complete agreement with another; all differ. You have not told me which manuscript is the one, which maintains the exact duplication of the autographic text. The Textus Receptus and the resulting KJV are the products of conflation of fifteen different manuscripts, none of which were in agreement. Did the Word of God disappear until Erasmus put it back together again? Why should I hold your translation above any other?
----> I also get back to my point with you two weeks ago. My time is being consumed with witnessing and discipleship, all using the NASB and all evidencing the blessing of God. Your statement that if you were right would not this be an important issue is true if you are right. But nothing you have written supports the assertion that the KJV is the inspired translation of the Word of God, though I grant it is a usable and beneficial translation for people living in the 1600’s. I assume your letter is a garning of your best arguments, and if so please don’t waste my time on this subject again. If you are interested in growing in your Christian life and want to talk about relevant issues like impacting our increasingly pagan society with the gospel of Jesus Christ, I would love to work together with you for the sake of our Lord. But if the KJV is your central issue, you need to find someone who cares about what you care about. I have more important things to do.
Again, please forgive the forthrightness of my style in this letter. It is not my normal tone. Neither should you assume that I think of you anything other than fondness. I would look forward to seeing you again.
Your Brother in Christ,
Mark A. Ellis
2 Corinthians 7:2-4; 11:1-3;
2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Facebook Badge
About Me
- Gary N Alford
- Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States
- I was "born of the flesh" on November 24, 1960 and I was "born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-6) in May, 1981. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3) I am a 55 year old student and teacher of the word of God, the Holy Bible. I am a student of the English Language and its history including Anglo-Saxon and Middle English. I am also currently studying American History. I am an avid reader with a personal library of around 2000 volumes. I am a literary critic including Biblical works and Biblical doctrine. I am a master of Biblical studies, having read completely through the King James Bible approximately 30 times, and studied the Bible for most of 27 years. I have written and personally published and printed (by Word of Truth Publications) about 20 Biblical tracts. I continue my studies for continued personal growth and for preparation for further publication of new materials. [And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Timothy 2:2 ]