23039232 Av Verses Matt To Acts To 59

24 AV Verses Vindicated

(Collated from Waymarks 1-59)

NEW TESTAMENT. Matthew to Acts Matthew 1: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn (protokos) son “but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son” NRSV This NRSV rendering is ambiguous and not only because “firstborn” is omitted. It allows the possibility of extramarital relations in the form of fornication. This was the slander of the Pharisees, We be not born of fornication (Jn. 8: 41. The NRSV also mistranslates this verse.) The virgin birth of Christ is questioned by the NRSV and most other modern versions. It is no longer believed by modern clerics and theologians. Archbishop Tutu has publicly questioned Mary’s morality. It is however a fundamental truth essential to our salvation. protokos is well attested, being found in the majority of manuscripts and in ancient versions.

Matthew 3: 6 ....and were baptized of him in Jordan.... All modern versions have the word “baptized” , and indeed all ancient versions have the word “baptized” and translate the Greek baptizo accordingly in every place. It is strange therefore that some of our brethren seek to make an issue out of it and suggest the word should be translated immerse or dip. The AV translators were well of aware of the various meanings of the word for at Luke 16: 24 we read that he may dip (bapto ) the tip of his finger in water. L Streeter, in his book Seventy five Problems, writes“[The word baptism] was an English word in 1611. … It had been an English word for hundreds of years before the King James translators were born. … Baptisid and baptym were found in Wycliffe’s Bible in A.D. 1380. This was 220 years before the King James translators used the word. … The word baptize does indeed mean to immerse, or to dip. That is the very literal meaning of the word. However, in using the word baptize FOR THE ORDINANCE OF WATER BAPTISM, the Holy Spirit obviously meant more than that. The ordinance of baptism is more than a burial. It is also a resurrection (Romans 6:4). … Therefore, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit helped the KJV translators to wisely use the word baptize rather than immerse. … Every new version we checked says ‘baptize.’ Not a single one of them says ‘immerse.’ Why do you suppose that the professor did not criticize the new versions on this point?” (pp. 57, 58). — found on Wayoflife.org Mathew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Some of our commentators tell us that the reading should be "carried up" and not led up. But in Lk.22:66 we have the same Greek word anago where we read, And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him [Christ] into their council. We do not believe the Lord was carried in. He was always in full control of every situation whether in the Jews council or in the wilderness. In Matthew 4 we read of His willing response to the guiding of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the will of the Father. In Mk.1:12, immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. The Greek verb ekballo here is more often translated "cast out", but in Jn.2:15 it is translated as in Mk.1:12, He drove them all out of the temple. Mark expresses the Lord's willing determination and the power in all his movements in pleasing the Father. We fear that sometimes Bible words are changed by preachers in order to give the impression that they have an inner knowledge not available to rank and file believers. Matthew 6:13

25 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Critics will not accept this verse as genuine. These words which were added to our Lord’s Prayer make it contradictory. It would be useless to pray for God’s kingdom to come if the divine rule is already fully operative in the earth. At the time these uninspired words were added to the Lord’s Prayer, it was the general belief that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems of Europe, hence this effort to make the Bible support the claim. ─ www.bibletoday.com Fred. Nolan, as long ago as 1815, proved in An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text that this verse had existed from the beginning. As usual, it is but a handful of depraved Romish manuscripts that omit it. Tatian quoted it in his Diatessaron (150-160 AD). Burgon wrote concerning the removal of this text, and others, from the text of Scripture, May we be permitted to say without offence, that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,... she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? It was never the “general belief” of the saints of God that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems. It is the kingdom of GOD that is referred to. David spoke of it in 1 Chron.29:11, Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. The sovereignty of the eternal God extends through all ages and the time is fast approaching when Christ will rule on earth for a thousand years. The words of the thief on the cross were, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Lk.23:42). He wasn’t thinking of heaven either, as the Lord made plain in His answer. Matthew 7: 14 Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. “Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it”. (NKJV) The way is narrow which leads to life, meaning that it is restricted. There is no room for pride and love of sin along this way. But the way is NOT difficult for one must come as a little child. The false translation of the NKJV paves the way for the false gospel of self-effort in order to be saved. It is not “do” but “done”. Matthew 8: 2 There came a leper and worshipped him Only deity is entitled to worship and here, and in ten other places recorded in the N.T., Jesus accepted worship. Darby did not like the idea of the Lord being worshipped so he changed it to “do homage”. The NIV has “kneeled before” in five of the eleven places. The suggestion that it doesn’t really matter because the Lord’s deity is upheld in the other six references shows a v3ery careless approach to the Scriptures. Bible believers care about the omission of the truth even if it should be only in one verse. Matthew 9: 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. “to repentance” is missing from modern versions. This explains why repentance is missing from modern preaching. The Lord said, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. The removal of repentance ensures that multitudes of false Christians will go to the lake of fire. The words are well attested in the Greek manuscripts and were removed in a few spurious manuscripts. We note that J N Darby chopped these Spirit given words from his own translation. This will account for the unwillingness to preach repentance by those who follow Darby today. Matthew 9:15 Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?

26 Prof. David Gooding writes "When the Lord Jesus used the term 'children of the bridechamber', it was the every day expression for 'guests of the bridegroom'. But the fact is in English we do not call wedding guests 'children of the bridechamber', any more than we call potatoes 'earth-apples'. Why not then, use the straight forward, natural English expression which everybody immediately understands, instead of a literal translation of an oriental expression which in English sounds peculiar and puzzles many readers? At least, that is what many modern translations do in such cases, and why they differ from the AV". The Word; issue 36; p.23. Gooding does not believe in verbal inspiration. 'Bridechamber' and 'bridegroom' are both mentioned in this verse and they are not the same. If guests of the bridegroom were intended then we would have to read, 'how can the guests of the bridegroom mourn as long as HE is with them?', as in the NIV. But that is a false reading. We must read Scripture carefully. Thus Prof. Edersheim tells us that "all the invited guests bore the general name of ' children of the bridechamber'. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Vol.1 p.355. the bride's guests were there as well. By this we see that modern versions fail to supply an accurate translation. But the whole significance of the verse is denied in modern versions. We are not reading of an ordinary wedding feast. The context is the disciple's relationship with the Lord in something which is entirely new. They were not merely guests at this wedding feast, to go home when it was all over¾they were children. They would remain children of the bridechamber even after the bridegroom had been taken from them - and crucified. Friends enjoy closer relationships than those who are but guests, but these first disciples were more than just friends of the bridegroom. The designation 'friend of the bridegroom'. belongs uniquely to John the Baptist, (Jn.3:29). The bride is made upon all believers from Pentecost to the Rapture. John was outside of that, being sent before Him. So these who were first described as children of the bridechamber, enjoying an intimate relationship with the bridegroom, are also part of that bride which is the Church. They were all together on the day of Pentecost, the birth day of the Church, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them. Matthew 10: 5,8 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,....cleanse the lepers, raise the dead.... Dean ,Burgon who so skilfully dernolished the Westcott& Hort theories upon which the RV was based, was nevertheless not 100% in favour of the Received Text. But then neither were the AV translators.There are a number of places where AV readings are not found in the RT, Conversely, Burgon regretted that the phrase "Raise the dead" which IS in the RT, found its way into the AV. Burgon wrote, "when our Lord first sent forth His twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead'. This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists: because it is found in those corrupt witnesses- ‫ א‬B C D, and the Latin copies. But he might also have pointed out that the words were kept in the RT because of the stronq ancient testimony to them|. It may be that Burgon's real objection was that the comand to raise the dead did not seem to fit in with the Lord’s Commission" This, he says, is easily demonstrable. Only he didn’t demonstrate it . That the Apostles did have the miraculous powers given to them in Matt. l0, and that they used them after the Lord’s ascension is demonstrated in the book of Acts. Particularly we note Acts 9:36-45. where we read of the death of Dorcas. Peter raised her to life again- He obviously knew he had this power for it would have been very damaging to the furtherance of the gospel if Peter had told her to arise and nothing had happened. It follows also that the men who went to fetch Peter knew that he had been given this power. There would have been no value in calling him to come and look at a corpse if he could do nothing about it. So we need not be surprised to read in the gospels of the occasion when the Lord conferred this power on the apostles. Paul also raised Eutychus from the dead, Acts 20: 9-12. This is ore of the very few placcs where Burgon slipped up and allowed his judgment to be coloured by subjective reasoning. Dr. Letis has pointed this out in his book, The Eccliastical Text. Matthew 12: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the

27 whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton. ketos (whale) is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation. It is better then simply to believe the Bible. The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale. We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea. Matthew 13:4 Some seeds fell by the wayside. It is being taught by some that “seeds” in this verse is not the Word, but refers to persons being sown. They concede that in Luke 8:11, The seed is the word of God is an accurate translation, so making the Lord contradict Himself as do all the modern versions. They know that the word is the seed and he which received seed by the wayside (Mt.13:19) means he that was sown with the seed by the wayside or had the seed sown in him. It was sown in his heart, the verse says so. The sower never sowed him anywhere. The scholars cannot grasp these elementary truths. Matthew 17: 21 Howbeit this kind (faith as a grain of mustard seed, in making prayer requests, v.20) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. “....(omitted text)” ESV V.21 not even referred to. no explanation s to why it is missing. NRSV In this gluttonous age men will not pray and certainly they will not fast. No fasting: no tremendous answers to prayer. However, there is extensive manuscript evidence for this verse and only two depraved manuscripts supporting the omission; Aleph* and B theta. It is clear therefore that the words were wrested from Scripture by ungodly hands. The omission today is supported by the ungodly textual critics Matthew 18: 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Modern Bible critics do not want the Son of man coming to save that which was lost. The verse is therefore rejected in most modern versions. One version rejecting these words is the NIrV. My copy was published in 1996 with introductions by Steve Chalke.. Under the heading “Verses not found in the earliest Greek New Testaments” we find the above verse listed. How does Chalke come by this information? What and where are these “earliest New Testaments”? Reference to New Testament implies all the books of the New Testament bound together in one. To which New Testaments does he refer? He doesn’t tell us. As it happens the verse is found in numerous papyri (these being older than any complete Greek N.T.), also it is found in the majority the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is missing form very few manuscripts. Chalke wants us to believe the verse was added by some illiterate believer very early on —and then astonishingly kept in almost without exception by every subsequent copyist. Chalke, has stated publicly that Catholicism is just another form of Christian worship (- Cecil Andrews; “Take Heed” Ministries ;Oct.2004). Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus, denies the doctrine of Penal Substitution. That is, he denies that God sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins.(1 John 4: 10). Chalke has been described as a “Christian TV Star”.- Belfast Telegraph; 12th Nov 1994. Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee... It is alleged that the words “against thee” should be omitted from this verse. One reason given is that some

28 Greek mss omit them. In fact just two mss omit them, against the majority which keep them. These two are the Sinaiticus (found in a rubbish bin in a Romish monastery by Tischendorf) and the Vaticanus, (kept in the Vatican and never fully inspected by any believer at any time in its history.) Newberry lists some of the mss supporting 'against thee' but his list is by no means complete. JND keeps the words without even a footnote. The RV keeps the words but has a footnote, as also the NIV. Not even the Doauy-Rheims omits them. We have to come to the J.W. New World Translation to find their omission. The words are quoted by several of the so-called Fathers long before the Sin. and Vat. were invented. They are inspired words of Scripture. Their removal makes way for the Romish confessional box. Their removal allows sin to be covered up, for I can go to a sinning brother, who has sinned, not against me but against another brother, or maybe against his neighbour and certainly against his God and if I can persuade him to stop then no one else need know. We can sweep it under the carpet. We trust that is not the reason why some of our dear brethren want the words wrested from Scripture. More about Mtt.18: 15 Despite all the evidence in favour of the received text, we read in a magazine, Truth and Tidings: May, 2005, published on the internet - …”most of the manuscripts from which our translations come either omit ‘against thee’ or note that it may not have been in the original writings.” We wonder how such a writer (David Oliver) can be so ignorant. Or is this a malicious intent to deceive? The above comments will be published in Waymarks 42, August 2005. You may wish to make a comment. I received by email the following reply, Dear Brother: Thank you for your very careful and thorough handling of the issue. If you knew our brother Oliver well, you would not accuse him of being ignorant. Likewise, to call in question his motive - "Is this a malicious intent to deceive" would be the last thing you would do. If I remember correctly, Paul does warn against judging motives (1 Cor 4). I am not writing to defend, only to caution and to welcome helpful insights and comments without the unnecessary innuendoes and suggestions. Our brother Oliver would be the last to condone sin or to encourage the pathway you have warned against. We welcome your thoughts and appreciate your honesty and the time spent in writing. Warmly in Him, Sandy Dr Higgins appears to assure us that when Mr Oliver told his readers that most manuscripts reject “against thee” when in fact only two popish manuscripts do, he knew what he was doing! The words “against thee” are part of holy Scripture given by inspiration of God. It is a very serious matter to tamper with the word of God. Mr Oliver has compounded his error with his lie. All attacks on Scripture are malicious. They cannot be anything else. Mr Oliver’s motives have not been questioned by me. I know not whether his action springs out of pride, or the desire to appear erudite, or contempt for the AV Bible which is the word of God, or a desire to destroy the faith of many, or such. We note that the error was not corrected in the next issue of Truth and Tidings. Let its readers remain misled! Mr Oliver also attacked the virgin birth of Christ in an earlier issue of Truth and Tidings. This was answered in Waymarks no. 28, repeated below. A comment on this verse, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7: 14), found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is that the Hebrew almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English virgin. almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a “young woman capable of bearing children” conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”. The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son

29 Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child. Truth and Tidings tells us this sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not! Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says “Ask THEE (singular0 a sign.” Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; The Lord Himself shall give YOU (plural) a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou (Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz. It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard themselves as the fount of all truth. Matt.18: 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. There are some who make a play of the first “in”. They want to make it read “unto my name” on the grounds that the preposition eis may be translated “unto”. J N Darby appears to be the first (and only translator, that I can find ) who makes this change. The change was made in order to promote an ecclesiastical system. The system became known as Exclusive Brethrenism and is now as much a false cult as any can be. “Unto” is an archaic word and has been replaced almost entirely by “to” (not “in”) in modern usage.. Eis is translated by many English prepositions; to, into. in, throughout, for, unto, by, at, among, against, upon, toward, on, concerning. “In” is used at least 70 times, so we may deduce there is no reason at all why it should not be “in” in Matt. 18: 20. “The idea in the original Greek of the New Testament is ‘having been and being gathered together’” —Present Truth; Vol.15, June 2009, No. 172,`p. 52. Yet no translation or version carries so much as a hint of this “idea”. It is cult talk.

Matt. 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Such is the Satan’s fury against Christ and His Word, that in this chapter nineteen of Matthew’s gospel alone, 35 changes are made by the critical text. In verse nine the words and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery are not found in the revised Greek NA text, and so are missing from modern versions. Yet the manuscript authority for them is extensive. The authority for retaining this clause is found in the following mss:Papyri: (P25) B C* E F G H K N O U V W Y Z Delta Theta Pi Sigma Phi 078 Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1, 13 Old Latin: aur c f g2 Vulg Syr: pesh harc pal Cop: bo Arm: Eth Also extant in Omega 047 055 0211 0233? Authorities rejecting this clause: Papyri: Aleph C-3 D L S Cursives: pc (i.e. a small handful) Old Latin: a b d e ff1,2 g1 h l r1 Syriac: sin cur sa bo-ms Thus we find overwhelming evidence in favour of this clause. Wycliffe’s translation of Jerome’s Latin vulgate c.1380 at this verse makes interesting reading; “And I seie to

30 3ou, that who ever leeveth his wijf, but for fornycacion, and weddeth another, doith letcherie; and he that weddeth the forsaken wijf, doith letcherie. Men will mutilate Scripture to serve their own ungodly purposes. The divorced partner may well be innocent but the marriage bond still holds in heaven, so she is not free to remarry. Some are trying to get round this by saying that if the marriage is not consummated, the marriage can be annulled. But it is not consummation that makes the bond before God, but rather the formal marriage vow taken before witnesses. This binds until the death of one annuls it. Matthew 20: 30 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children, with her sons, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. Worship is the entitlement of God alone. Matthew, writing the gospel knew this; he had already recorded the Lord’s response to Satan in ch.4, v.10’ Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The Lord Jesus Christ accepted worship while on earth. The mother of Zebedee;s children knew Him to be the Lord her God. By this perversions of Scripture become apparent when they deny worship to Jesus Christ here in the flesh. So, J N Darby will have her and her sons merely “doing homage” which is no more than acknowledging one of a higher status. The Rheims Version has “bowing down”; Knox has “falling on her knees” and the NIV has her “kneeling down”. The RT has proskuneo which is the usual word for worship in the Greek NT. The Critical Text mischievously changes the Greek word to proserkomai which is first used in the TR at Mtt.4 : 3 when the tempter came to him and is never translated worship in the AV Bible. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master, even Christ. Exception is taken to these words by some of our teachers. They do not like Christ being Master, so they tell us, "the editors of the Greek Text amend verse 8 to read didaskolos = teacher (RV), though JND uses "instructor..." (What the Bible Teaches; Mt./Mk.p.308). What Greek Text? We presume the Westcott / Hort text is meant. These two Anglicans dabbled in Spiritism and were hostile to evangelical truth. The Greek word for "Master" occurs in the majority of mss, the alternative being found in a handful of Romish mss. They go on to tell us that as the word should be "teacher", so the words "even Christ" should be omitted because the Holy Spirit is now our Teacher and not Christ. But these words are well attested, being quoted by two of the early Fathers (socalled), NOVATIAN and GREGORY OF NYSSA. Critics should meditate upon Eph.4:20,21 where Paul reminds the Ephesian saints that they have heard and have been taught by the Christ that they probably never saw in the flesh. Those who do not hear His voice remain without eternal life. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. Jn.13:13. Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. This should read “strain out a gnat” say the Bible critics. One of them, W E Glenny, makes a great play over this phrase. He writes in relation to this verse, Most believers realize that people can make mistakes in copying and printing the Bible; furthermore, they believe that only the original autographs were inspired, not the KJV, or the TR, or any other translation or edition. However, for the King James-Only advocate, such differences are more than an embarrassment; they are a contradiction of the King James-Only position. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that should be changed? If it has been changed, which edition is the inspired edition? —One Bible Only? P.90. The word translated strain at (diulizo) is used here only in the whole of Scripture. In the 15th century it meant “to choke over/ to gag at”. It never meant “to strive for” and doesn’t mean “to strain out”. The Pharisees would choke over things of little consequence but would swallow the more serious things without demur. F F Bruce tells us that Vine, in his dictionary, relied on the definitions of Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur—all of them unbelieving rationalists. So Vine falsely renders the word in question. Now we see the degree to which Bible critics will go to attack God’s Book. They reveal an innate hostility to the

31 truth. The “Mistake” is with the critic. There are no errors in the Bible, so these men must invent them. Matthew 24: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all (holos= complete; altogether; every whit) the world for a witness unto all the nations and then shall the end come. “And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth,

JND

Note that when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (Lk. 2: 1) the Greek word holos was not used. The decree did not apply outside the Roman Empire. JND changed the meaning of holos to “not all, but part of” He did this in many places where holos is used... He made these changes without any authority but his own. The only place where habitable occurs in the AV Bible is Prov. 8: 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; Some men live in parts of the world regarded as uninhabitable. Darby will not have these to be evangelised. Who now decides which parts of the earth are habitable? The answer: The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development—Agenda 21. The object of this is to bring the habitable earth under the control of a ruling elite. This is why we are seeing the “Global Warming” lobby gaining strength. We also see the religious side of the “One Ruler for the World” growing also. This is what the Bahá'í’s

have to say about it:-

The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established. Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892) The successful execution of the programmes enunciated in Agenda 21 will greatly depend on the willingness of the peoples and nations of the world to recognise the vital link between global transformation and spiritual principles. In the Bahá'í view, "the storm battering at the foundation of society will not be stilled unless and until spiritual principles are actively engaged in the search for solutions." Primary among the spiritual principles which must guide the systematic implementation of Agenda 21 is the oneness of humanity. It is this cardinal principle that Bahá'ís believe will provide the spiritual, moral and ethical underpinnings for the successful translation of Agenda 21 into practical action in all parts of the world and at all levels of human society. Now we see what JND started with his mischievous mutilations of Scripture. Scofield latched on to this with his “inhabited earth” footnotes. (See Lk. 2: 1). Some may conclude that the Doctrine of Sustainable Land Development is God-given. But what spirit was really behind JND in his translation? Some information above is gleaned from libertytothecaptives.net Matthew 24: 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Some modern versions, following a handful of Alexandrian mss, interpolate “nor the son” after not the angels of heaven. The majority of manuscripts do not have this phrase in Matthew. Neither the Son is found, correctly, in the parallel passage, Mark 13: 32 The practice of the critics is to reject what they do not understand, and Ehrman goes to great lengths trying to explain why the copyists did not include /exclude both phrases. The believer does not have to understand every word in his Bible before he judges it to be authentic. This is rationalism. The child of God believes the word and waits for the Holy Spirit to illumine his mind on what he reads. Matthew is the gospel of the King. Mark is the gospel of the Servant. J Moorman links the phrase in Mark with John 15: 15 The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. -Early manuscripts and the Authorized Version; BFT; p.72 Matthew 25: 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. It is evident that the AV translators did not regard the words everlasting and eternal as having the same meaning and interchangeable. The two words in the same sentence are sufficient proof of this. We do not believe that

32 English words were used indiscriminately by the translators, as some suggest. They were well aware, of course, that they were translating one Greek word, aionios. We learn as we read our Bible with a believing mind, that aionios has two meanings which are not identical and cannot be interchanged. The Spirit of God led our translators to see this. (I am not implying that the AV was a newly inspired book). God is eternal; without beginning and without end. We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20). The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The believer, being in Christ, receives that eternal life which is the life of Christ imparted. From the moment of conversion one’s new life begins and it is therefore everlasting life. Underneath are the everlasting arms. God doesn’t have eternal arms, but from the time men needed them they were there. Matthew 26:6-13 ....A woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment.... (Also see Mk.14:1-9, Lk.7:36-50, Jn.12:1-9). There appears in all four Gospels an account of a woman pouring an ointment on the Lord. The careless reader concludes that the same event is being referred to in all four gospels. A careful comparison reveals three separate occasions when a woman approached the Lord with ointment. The first time was during the Lord's Galilean Ministry, recorded for us by Luke. We learn from v.24 that John the Baptist was still alive so this happened quite early in the Lord's public ministry. The second time was six days before the Passover, recorded by John. It was the day before the Lord rode into Jerusalem seated upon an ass, (12:12.) so it was at the end of the Lord's public ministry and it took place in Judea and not in Galilee. The third time was only two days before the Passover, being the same Passover recorded by John, evident in the fact that both Matthew and Mark tell us that the disciples prepared for that supper, it being the night of His betrayal. Matthew and Mark speak of that third anointing. In order to harmonize these accounts (and beware of men who want to "harmonize" the Scriptures) certain criteria are followed by the critics. The first is that the Bible is no different from any other literary work. That is, it does not have any divine origin. It then follows that the writers are liable to make mistakes (no such thing as verbal inspiration) and what they did write down was largely legendary, passed on from earlier sources by word of mouth. Then, the gospel writers allegedly copied from each other. They were therefore guilty of plagiarism! So we find in Readings in St John's Gospel; by William Temple, "He comes first to His friends at Bethany. They most naturally arrange a supper for Him. They do this not in their own house, but in the house of Simon the Leper (St. Mark xiv,3, only St. Mark has a wrong note of time; his chronology of Holy Week, and consequently that of the other two synoptists, is mistaken at several points, especially the date of the crucifixion itself. St. John is all through this period both referring to the Marcan record and correcting it)." Temple was a prominent apostate of his day (1881-1944). He was a one -time Archbishop of York and then of Canterbury. (Need we say more?). We know that godless clerics could not possibly produce any spiritual work, but what is grievous is that the same wicked lies are now commonly promoted from our own platforms. The lie is this:- Matthew and Mark say TWO days whilst John says SIX days so at least one of them has got it wrong. How frustrated God must be "trying to get the message across" and these gospel writers keep getting it muddled up. It is a satanic lie of course. If one does not believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture then there is no way one will get into God's heaven. One simply is not a believer. How can a person be saved if he does not believe in the infallible, inerrant word of God? Some are so confused over the matter that they tell us that six days might mean two days! This subject has nothing to do with versions either. Either you believe the Bible implicitly or not at all. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe. Now a little application. There is an interesting omission in Luke's account. The Lord did not say that the woman had done it for His burial as the other three writers tell us. For the Lord had not up to that time spoken to His disciples concerning His death. This was a poor sinful woman who came to the Saviour in simple faith and devotion and received forgiveness of sins.

33 At the end of His ministry the Lord had spoken of His impending crucifixion, burial and resurrection. The disciples could not grasp it but two women did. Mary, who was not a sinful woman like the woman of Luke 7, was a spiritual woman and that is why she brought her 1lb of spikenard and anointed His feet. she had appreciated what lay before her Lord. It was done against His burial, the Lord said so. Four days later another woman wished to be associated with His death so she anointed the Lord's head as Mary had anointed His feet. Chart of Spikenard Anointings

Matt.26:6-13

Mark 14: 1-10

Luke 7: 36-50

John 12: 1-9

WHEN

After two days, the last Passover.

After two days, the last Passover

John Baptist still alive (v.24)

Six days before the (last) Passover

WHERE

Bethasny, house of Simon the leper. A woman

Bethany, house of Simon the leper. A woman

Bethany, Martha serving. (by implication, her house) Mary, sister of Martha.

WHAT was used HOW

Very precious ointment

Spikenard

A Pharisee’s house in Galilee A woman who was a sinner. Ointment

On the Lord’s head

On the Lord’s head

On the Lord’s feet, after Washing with tears and Wiping with her hair

WHY VALUE REACTION

For His burial

To the burying

Anointed the Lord’s feet Then wiped them with Her hair. Against His burial

For much

300 pence

Disciples had indignation

Some had indignation

WHO did it

------------------------The Pharisees murmered Because she was a sinner

1lb. Spikenard

300 pence Judas murmered

Matthew 27: 3, 4 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. The word metamellomai, here translated “repented” is used only five times in the New Testament and is not the usual word for repent. Some don’t like the idea of Judas repenting (though he brought forth fruit meet unto repentance) so they tell us he did no more than “regret” his betrayal. See God’s Word to the Nations now being quoted by one of our leading conservative evangelists. If it is regret here, then it must be regret in the other four places. (Matt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7: 8; Heb. 7: 21). Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?) This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptable one. The words from the cross are reported slightly differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.

34 Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24. Not all the Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of the unfaithful spoke half in the language of Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god. We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions. Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. There were no more until John the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up. However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit. God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time as some allege, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord. There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,Several verses in the New Testament appear at first sight [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably [my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem." But it doesn't say "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article quoted above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible. Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge the Biblical testimony to the use of Hebrew? Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular". There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years

35 during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.

The mistranslation of Mtt.27: 45, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? to read “...why didst thou forsake me?” has led to a more serious error. It is being taught that in the hours of darkness on the cross Christ paid the penalty of our sins. So we have stated at a conference “In those hours of darkness Christ paid the price of our sins, and paid it all”. (Easter conference, Basingstoke, 2004). In which case Christ did not die for our sins; the penalty had been meted out while He yet lived. This false teaching now gaining ground among the Brethren destroys the foundation of our faith. It is based upon the perversion of Scripture made popular by Darby, Tregelles, and Vine We are not told what took place during the hours of darkness. God hid from the eyes of the world the agonies of the suffering Saviour during those three hours. We understand therefore that God does not wish us to know what transpired then between Father and Son. We can but believe it was that He who knew no sin should be made sin. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, and God’s wrath against sin fell upon Him then. He came under God’s judgment for our sin, as He became our sin-bearer. So He made the awful cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. And then He died. In His death He paid the price of our redemption. Six times we read in the New Testament that Christ died. He died for the ungodly; He died for us; He died for all. We are reminded also that without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb. 9: 22). This verse is seldom quoted accurately. We have heard it said that God guided the hand that threw the spear that pierced the Saviour’s side, somit was the Roman spear drew forth the atoning blood. God’s redeeming work did not depend on the actions of an ungodly Roman soldier. The Lord was already dead and His work completed when His side was pierced. Neither was it the cross that caused His death, because He had power to lay down His own life. Some have suggested that the Lord died of a broken heart. The act of killing a man is, in the Old Testament, described as the shedding of blood, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (Gen. 9: 6). It was not necessary that the victim’s blood should flow from his body. The expression is used frequently in the Scriptures Matthew 28: 19 Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This should read “ ‘into the name’, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God” says P. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers; 1873. Well of course, the preposition is eis which is commonly translated “into”. but he doesn’t let his readers know that 20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including “in”. Should we read “He came and dwelt into (eis) a city called Nazareth”? Schaff’s change is governed by his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God. Many still follow this pernicious error. Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets. This verse is followed by two quotations, one from Malachi, and the other from Isaiah. Textual critics tell us that the original reading was "as it is written in Isaiah", and that "someone, who recognized that the citation was a collation from two prophets, simply 'corrected' the text". The original writer was Mark. Thus modern scholars regard Mark as stupid, ignorant of OT Scripture, and not Spirit-led. They also show themselves to be apostate, not believing in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, or else they believe that the Holy Spirit directed Mark to write lies, if indeed they believe that Mark wrote Mark 's Gospel in the first place. The modern versions all carry the lie, from JND's New Translation; the RV and onwards. Notice also how JND (with most modern versions) omits "without a cause" from Mat.5:22, thereby charging the Lord with sin. See Mk.3:5 Mark 1:12 (see Mtt.4:1) Mark 6:20

36 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him: and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. This is a much mutilated verse in the modern versions. The NIV reads "Because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled, yet he liked to listen to him". The AV Translators knew what the simplest Bible reader is able to grasp, that Herod certainly did not protect John but allowed the scheming and vile Herodias to have him beheaded. Of course, the Translators also knew that the word for "observed" may be translated as "protected" or "kept him (safe)" but as it plainly cannot mean that in this context, they relegated that translation to the margin. The meaning is brought out in Luke 2:19, where the same Greek word is used, Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. That is what Herod did with John. What a pity our critics didn't notice this verse. Scripture is its own interpreter. The NIV tells us that Mary treasured up all these things. As the critics complain about inconsistencies so-called in the AV translation perhaps they might have been consistent themselves and have Herod treasuring up John. But they cannot bear the thought of Herod actually understanding what John was saying to him. That is because no modern critic understands the truths of Scripture and they assume that therefore no other of their ilk could understand it either. So they have Herod puzzled instead of doing many things. This time the alteration is not a matter of translation but of a different Greek text. The critics have changed the original Greek word. Only a few ancient mss. support the modern reading and the vast majority of mss. support the AV (as always!). So what are the "many things" that Herod did? If you cannot tell us, say the critics, that proves the AV is wrong. Everything has to be explained away to these dark-minded rationalists. The Scripture doesn't tell us what these many things were that Herod did and that is enough for any Bible believer. But what that man did was as a result of hearing John's preaching, which was essentially a message of repentance. The wretched man presumably started trying to put his life right but he had left it too late. One other thing, you do not listen gladly to a man you cannot understand. That alone shows us the nonsense of modern translations. James White is one of those who mutilate Scripture, as he writes in his book, The King James only Controversy, concerning Mark 6:20. "The Greek term simply does not mean 'observe' but instead means 'to protect'". We have shown that to be false, simply by looking in a concordance. The title of his book is misleading. He teaches that there is a cult that will not read, use , or recognize any bible apart from the AV. Then he proceeds to knock down his straw man. I have never met any such people, for those who know that the AV is the word of God for English speaking believers know perfectly well that the same Scriptures have been accurately translated into all the major languages of the world. And the "controversy" is with those who deny that God could possibly preserve his word for all generations. Therefore Mr, White has to corrupt Ps.12:6,7. He says, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever should really be "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people for ever." What people does Mr White wish to be protected from? They can only be the godly and faithful of v.1. He gives no reasons at all for the change, only that Ps.12 doesn't mention the "King James Version of the Bible", and, "nowhere does this passage tell us how God will preserve His words". So therefore He can't, according to Mr White. Any believer knows how God has preserved His words. The unbeliever thinks he can meddle with Scripture as he will. This whole book is an attack, not merely on the AV, but on the integrity of Holy Spirit given Scripture. How has Scripture been preserved? By the faithful copying of faithful men, a work overseen by the Holy Spirit of God. Mark 9: 42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Darby puts “in me” in square brackets, indicating his objection to these words and casting doubt on their genuineness. They have indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modern versions, notably the NASV. The manuscript evidence in favour of “in me” is massive. Their removal is therefore malicious. To some it matters not what is believed as long as one does not believe in Christ. What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex Vaticanus omits “in me” while its twin pillar of the critical

37 Text has thrown out these words. Mark 10: 21 …. And come, take up the cross, and follow me. The NIV reads “….then come, follow me.” There is no need to take up the cross. The Nestle-Aland Greek Text removes it as it is not found in the Greek Mss Aleph B C Delta Theta Psi 0274 and a handful of cursives. There is strong ms evidence for its inclusion. The cross remains an offence and they are the liberal neo-evangelicals who object to discipleship and thus promote the modern versions, which will remove the cross. Mark 10: 24 Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. The NIV reads: “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God”. Worse than this, the CEV has “So Jesus told them again, ‘It’s terribly hard to get into God’s kingdom.” Sinking lower, the Message [form hell?] has “Jesus kept on: ‘you can’t imagine how difficult.’ The implication is that possession of wealth is a sufficient obstacle to entrance into the kingdom of heaven. But the Lord taught that trust in riches was the hindrance. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. These modern versions suggest that self effort and works are required in order to gain salvation. Thus repentance toward God and faith in the shed blood of Christ are denied. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. What is in the world? Religion for one thing. Beware of this world’s religions Some of our brethren are all pally with Rome. They go into its schools and “share” the gospel with them. So their mouths are shut as far as truth is concerned. They dare not tell the students of the once and for all sacrifice for sin by Christ on the cross. They dare not denounce any of the wicked blasphemous doctrines of popery. They tell us it is not their business to pass judgments, only to preach the gospel. What gospel is this that denies Christ? What they really want is the praise of men. The modern gospel states “all you have to do to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. The chief rulers, we read in John 12, believed on Him. But they were not saved as the passage reveals (v42,43). The praise of men was all\ important to them. The Lord warned that which is highly esteemed among men is abominatio0n in the sight of God (Luke 16: 15). Anything whatsoever it is, however apparently moral and legitimate, having the approval of this world, is loathsome to our God. So the “gospel preacher” returns from his visit to the school and reports how well he was received by its staff and pupils. Note 1 Thess. 2: 6, Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you. Mark 10:29 30 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold… "Or wife", the critics tell us, was never in the original. They were added to the Greek text by a later copyist. They are quite dogmatic about it. There is no room for alternative views. "Or wife" has so little manuscript support, they insist, that it is not even mentioned in the extensive footnotes of the UBS's definitive Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (1994). Fourth edition? What about the first three editions then? Have they only now decided to ignore the words? What about the fifth edition, will they pop back in again? Or maybe in the sixth? There is no end to their Darwinian fantasy. Were the AV translators inconsistent when they put in these words, forgetting what they had put in 1 Corinthians 9:4? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles? Did they forget that Peter had apparently not left his wife? Mt.8:14. So when he said, we have left all, Peter certainly never had it in his mind that he had left his wife to follow the Lord. Should they not have paid heed to the fact that some foolish copyist had slipped in "or wife" because of Peter's words? We can't think why any one would wish to add words that were not in the original unless it should be

38 some person who could see that by becoming a missionary one could escape a nagging wife as well as escaping from all other domestic responsibilities. But we have great difficulty in treating the AV translators as ignoramuses. They were not. They understood what the Lord meant by leaving. By wresting "or wife" from Holy Writ, these modern mutilators of Scripture show that they do not grasp the spiritual significance of the Lord's words. The Lord never taught that by following Him one could forsake his responsibilities to home, wife and family. We believe the Lord certainly did say "or wife". The evidence is there. The words are present in the majority of mss. They are also present in Luke 18:29, though a few mss change the order of the words. So what did the Lord mean? Firstly the Lord was not giving a commandment; “thou shalt leave….” He said, "There is no man that hath left….” Thus the reasons for the action are left open. Peter had proclaimed that he had left all to follow the Lord. But the Lord is no man's debtor. There is reward to such. There is no sacrifice so great that the Lord cannot reward for it both now and in eternity. Mark 13: 14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not… Modern versions omit spoken of by Daniel the prophet. They together (including the RV and JND) attack the integrity of the book of Daniel. The authority for these words in Mark is overwhelming. Daniel described an event yet future, and from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12: 11) A denial of the prophecies of Daniel is apostasy. Suggestions that this prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 are based on unbelief. Mark 15:34 (see Mat.27:46) Mark 16:16 but he that believeth not shall be damned. We can understand why apostate critics gnash at the Scriptures and tear out whole passages when they read words such as these. Some tell us that vv.9-20 of Mark 16 should be omitted from Scripture. But the evidence for their inclusion is overwhelming. Even the AV critic, J N Darby, wrote, "I do not enter on the question of the authenticity of verses 9-20 here. I read them as Scripture. Burgon has pretty well demolished the authorities [he meant the perverted mss] against them". However, he did not like the word "damned" so he changed it to "condemned", keeping in line with most modern versions. When we demur at this change we are told "don't you appreciate that the AV translates katakrino as "condemned" in every other instance but one?". "Yes", we reply, "we also have a concordance. But have YE not read he that believeth not is condemned already? Jn.3:18". But that should read "judged already", say the critics. That change also is seen as false because the judgment of unbelievers is reserved until that great day of Judgment at the Great White Throne (Rev.20:13). God does not judge twice for the same offence, as the modern versionists would have it. God's order is this; all are condemned from birth by unbelief, for none was ever born a believer, and all are to be righteously judged for unbelief AND FOR EVERY ACT OF SIN at that final assize, unless refuge is sought at the Cross. The unbeliever, refusing Christ, will be damned eternally at that coming day. Men do not like the word damned because they know what it means, and that is why Satan has placed the word on the tongue of unbelievers as a daily invective in order to take the sting out of it. For the same reason he has introduced "hell" as an oath on the lips of the ungodly. So our coy bible teachers will "prefer" hades to hell. To be damned is to be eternally ruined yet never annihilated in the everlasting flames of the Lake of Fire. And if they are figurative flames as some of our unbelieving critics tell us, then whatever must the reality be like? Luke 2: 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn (kataluma). There is no reason to reject the traditional understanding of this passage. There are no problems with the text (i.e. underlying Greek text) or the translation. But some are teaching that the Lord was born in an open field

39 thereby negating the prophecy of Micah 5: 2, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. This prophecy relates to the birth of Christ, indicating that the birth would take place within Bethlehem. We do not believe there were open fields within Bethlehem’s bounds. The critics deny that kataluma could have anything to do with a stable because the word is translated “Guestchamber” in Mk.14: 14 and Luke 22: 11. Those who make a play of the Greek word kataluma show their distrust of the English Bible where we read the word “inn”. Inn is a satisfactory translation. Inns in New Testament times were places for the traveller to rest. Like modern inns they usually had parking places for the traveller’s vehicle; then it would be a stable at the base of the inn where the vehicle (an ass) might be parked overnight. It would need refuelling and a separate charge was usually made to the traveller for provender (hay) provided. Thus a manger was provided. (See Life in New Testament Times; A C Bouquet.) We would hardly expect to find a manger in an open field. Would not the sheep just eat the grass? Why would they need a manger? Luke 2: 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men. B Osborne, in the neo-evangelical magazine Precious Seed (Vol. 60, No.3, p.2), writes; ‘Peace on earth, goodwill to all men’. That was the message of the angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem. But the coming of Jesus did not bring peace on earth and wars have raged throughout history since then. And ‘goodwill to all men’? What of the industrial strife, disputes, family discords, church divisions? We do not know where Osborne found this quaint reading. It is certainly not AV, neither did I manage to locate it in the 30 or so versions that I checked. He goes on to quote the NIV and several other parodies of Scripture that happen to agree with the NIV. He seems unaware that these have all trotted out from the same Westcott and Hort stable. These tell us it is “Peace on earth among men on whom His favour rests.” This can mean only one thing ─ Christ came only for the favoured few. What caused some to be among the favoured few? Osborne tells us they are those who “receive His life”. So Christ died only for those He knew would later “receive his life”! We note that God’s goodwill is removed by the modern versions and replaced by the goodwill of men. Robertson shows that they are the usual Alexandrian mss that make the alteration ─ Among men in whom he is well pleased (en anthrōpois eudokias). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has eudokia, but the genitive eudokias is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here.” – Robertson’s word Pictures. We believe the TR to be correct, supported as it is by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. Those who deny it fail to grasp the message of the angels. There will be complete peace on earth in the ultimate fulfilment of the angelic pronouncement. Of course there is peace on earth now. It is available individually through faith in Christ to a whole human race alienated by wicked works. This alteration by the critics is therefore a doctrinal change. It denies the doctrine of salvation, denies the millennial reign of Christ, and supports Reformed Theology. Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord; Modern versions read "their purification" because, they tell us, that is what the Greek says. It matters not what Lev.12 says concerning the woman alone being required to make purification. They care nothing that Joseph is therefore regarded as the father of the child, and that all the family was unclean and needing purification. They are not concerned that Scripture is made to contradict itself and that they show themselves to be unbelievers. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (Jn.5:46). To say that there is no Greek text for the singular reading is false because the TBS published one, and Scrivener, who was on the RV committee, published his in1881. I have my copies in front of me. Luke 2: 33, 48 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. (v.33)

40 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (v.48) It is important to notice first that verse 33 is Luke’s commentary, written under the inspiration of God. Verse 48 is a report of Mary’s words, spoken at a time of deep stress, also given by inspiration of God. Ehrman writes concerning these verses Joseph is called Jesus' father twice in Luke's birth narrative (2:33, 48). In both instances scribes have modified the text to eliminate what must have appeared incongruous with the firmly entrenched notion that although Joseph was Mary's betrothed, he was not the father of Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:33 states that Jesus' "father and mother began to marvel" at the things being said about him. The majority of Greek manuscripts, however, along with a number of Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic witnesses, have changed the text to read "Joseph and his mother began to marvel." The change makes perfect sense, given the orthodox view that Joseph was in fact not Jesus' father. There can be little doubt that in this case the majority text represents a corruption rather than the original reading: a wide range of early and superior manuscripts consistently give the reading that is also more difficult. The wide attestation of the variant reading and the confluence of ancient versions in its support, however, do show that the text had been changed relatively early in the history of its transmission, at least in the third century and more likely in the second—precisely during the time of the adoptionist controversies. The doctrine of the virgin birth is to Ehrman no more than a firmly entrenched notion. He regards it as the view that had become “popular” by the second or third century. Therefore scribes altered the earlier manuscripts which spoke of the “father and mother” of the Lord, to accommodate the prevailing view. Ehrman’s views are based on the doctrine that earliest is best. The older a manuscript, the more faithful it is. He acknowledges that the majority of witnesses carry the words we find in the received text. He fails to point out Tatian, one of the early fathers, also quotes the “received” text! But all of this he writes off as a “corruption rather than the original text”. Many sound scholars have shown why the few apparently early texts are false. The early church rejected them. They were discarded early on only to be rediscovered around the 19 th century. The true manuscripts were repeatedly copied as they became worn out and so quite obviously only later copies remain available. It is worth noting that the child Jesus corrected his mother’s slip by replying How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (v.49) His Father is the Father in Heaven and no other. If not then there was no Christ and no Saviour. He would not have been able to confess I am the truth. Christianity collapses and we would be forced to conclude that God also is a figment of our imagination and maybe we ourselves do not actually exist. Luke 2:40, 52 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. These verses appear much the same in all the versions that I looked at, including the pernicious JW bible. None of them changed the word "wisdom". One is astounded therefore to read in Foundations; Issue No.42; Spring 1999, published by the British Evangelical Council, the following statement: "It is clear that Christ did not call on his divine knowledge to inform his human mind. So, for example, he grew in knowledge [my italics], Luke 2:40,52." So the Scripture is flagrantly mutilated in order to promote a blasphemy, that the Lord was not omniscient. Partial omniscience is a nonsense as is temporary omniscience. Omniscience is an attribute of deity and if ALL knowledge was not at all times held in that perfect holy human mind then His deity is defective. So would be His human personality. It is folly to speak of the ignorance associated with His human nature, while He remained omniscient in His divine nature. Christ proclaimed neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son. Mat.11:27. This must be the supreme knowledge. It must mean also that what is known to the Father is known by the Son. We are also told of Jesus, knowing all things, Jn.18:4. Unbelievers and rationalists will seize upon Mark 13:32 to prove the limitations of Christ. But of that day and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

41 Unless we think (in our ignorance) that there are contradictions in Scripture, then we must look for another explanation. It is that in His role as Son of Man, it was not given to Him of the Father to reveal such knowledge. He said to His disciples, It is not for you to know the times and the seasons. Acts 1:7. What of His growth in wisdom? Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Heb.5:8. It was a learning through human experience, by which the Lord grew in wisdom. Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? The RSV changes this to, “Did you not know I must be in my Father’s house?” The Greek word for house, oikos, is not found here, as it is in John 2:16, where we read, make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. Thus the emphasis in Luke is not on the house, but on the affairs of the Father. The Lord’s words indicate His deity. He is the Son who has come from the Father to conduct His affairs on earth. When the Lord said In my Father’s house there are many mansions, (John 14: 1), He was clearly referring to heaven and not to the earthly temple. This temple was desecrated and Judaism was godless. Neither was He informing Mary and Joseph, at the age of twelve, that He ought to be in heaven. The words in my Father’s business satisfactorily translate en tois tou patros mou. The RSV and other modern versions making this change rob Christ of His deity. Luke 9: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. The RSV replaces decease with departure. This is unnecessary as the word decease originally included the sense of departure. This is another word, which has been redefined to mean death only—and by implication, extinction. The AV translators might have left the word in an anglicised form—exodus, but they didn’t. The Lord was speaking of his death at Jerusalem. The verse tells us so. But believers know that Christ rose again and will reign in glory in His kingdom. Peter used the same word concerning himself (2 Peter 1: 15). Luke 14: 5 Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit…. “Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well…” WV “Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well…” NIrV “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well…” ESV Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament; Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place of onos (ass) Bible students will need to be wary of commentaries that are based on corrupt readings. The Bible Knowledge Commentary attributes error to the Lord Jesus, by having Him say “He (Christ) said that the guests would help a son or an ox in distress on the Sabbath, so it was totally appropriate to heal this poor individual.” — BKC; J Walvoord and B Zuck. This reduces the Lord’s charge against the lawyers and Pharisees to mere gentle chiding, whereas the Lord was exposing the hypocrisy of these God haters. Compare Lk. 13: 15. Luke 16:22,23 The rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, The average man in the street knows what is meant by hell. He knows it is a place beyond the grave for the godless and the profane and that is why it is an expletive commonly upon his lips. Satan has done his best to take the sting out of it. Religionists and modern versionists have helped to this end. We find an early amendment in the 1879 edition of Wycliffe’s New Testament. Wycliffe wrote ‘ and the riche man was deed also, and was biried in helle. And he reseide hise i3en, whanne he was in turmentis’, but in the glossary at the end of the book we find this interpretation given:

42 helle, s, grave, Lk.xvi.23. It will require a fantastic faith to believe that this rich man’s rotting corpse was placed in the (physical) grave and then all of a sudden it opened its eyes, being in torments, and cried out ‘ I am tormented in this flame’! Hell is not the grave. The rich man’s body was buried in a grave, but his soul was buried in hell. Some have taught that hell (Greek hades, Hebrew sheol) was the place to which all departed spirits went until Christ came. So says J N Darby, ‘Hades’ like ‘Sheol’ ….is a very vague expression used in general to designate the temporary state of departed spirits, the unseen or invisible world of spirits, upon which, till the coming of Christ, darkness and obscurity rested, as may be seen in the Old Testament. It is applied to Christ, who went into paradise, and to the rich man in Luke 16, who found himself in torment. New Translation; fn to Mt.11:23. Darby therefore would not translate hades but left the word in its anglicized form. Likewise the RV. Psalm 9:17 tells us, The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. This verse is sufficient to assure us that believers do not and never did get put into hell, otherwise the verse is meaningless. David anticipated heaven, for he wrote But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave [sheol], for he shall receive me. Ps.49:15. Jacob thought he might go down into sheol at death (Gen.37:35), but this doesn’t mean that he did. The teaching that Christ descended into hell at His death is heretical. ‘Grave’ in the O T translates five different Hebrew words, the commonest for the physical grave being keh’ver,and for hell it is sheol. The context usually reveals whether ‘grave’ stands for the burying place of the body, or the place where the soul is buried. The grave in the N T is always the burying place of the body. Gehenna is translated hell in the N T but is not synonymous with hades as the words of the Lord show. Mt.5:29 reads, the whole body should be cast into hell, and Mt.10:28 reads fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The body is placed in an earthly grave while the soul is consigned to hell (hades). Thus Gehenna is a picture of the Lake of Fire, Rev.20:14 into which, in that awful coming day, death (the body) and hell (the soul) shall be cast. Luke 23:15 No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. 'D.G.' writes in a Christian magazine, 'Note these last three words, 'done unto Him'. They are a mistaken translation. the correct rendering of the Greek would be 'done by Him'. Greek grammar puts the matter beyond doubt;.....All modern translations (including .N.Darby's) agree that the AV's translation is mistaken here. How its translators came to make what is such an elementary mistake in Greek grammar we shall never know.' There were eight scholars responsible for the AV translation of Luke's gospel. This is what A McCure tells us of them in his book, Translators Revived :HENRY SAVILE: Tutor in Greek and Maths to Elizabeth I. He became famous for his mathematical learning. Later made Warden of Merton College. JOHN HARMER: King's professor of Greek; Headmaster of Winchester School for 9 years; Warden of his college for 17 years. JOHN AGLIONBY: Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. An excellent linguist. LEONARD HUTTON: Known as an excellent Grecian, well versed in the learned languages. GEORGE ABBOT: Entered Balliol College, Oxford at age of fourteen. Fellow at age of twenty one. We are to understand that eight men, each of them of outstanding ability in the field of linguistics, and working together on the AV translation all made the same 'elementary mistake'! Not one of them spotted it. Neither did the other teams of academics as they cross checked each others' work. If 'D.G.'s (David Gooding's) academic attainments are not higher than those achieved by the men of the AV, then we trust that we shall never hear of him again. We must assume that he is also as fluent in Greek and several other languages as he is in his mother tongue, because they were. But 'D. G.' is wrong. He has misunderstood the passage and appears only to be looking for opportunity to decry the translation that God has mightily blessed since 1611.

43 I am not a Greek student. All I can do is look in my Wenham's and note that auto means “to him”. It is auto in every Greek ms. If some then tell us that there is an unusual grammatical construction in this verse, we point out that it was well enough known in 1611. So if we keep to the AV translation, what does it mean? Norman Crawford explains the verse precisely, '[Pilate] sent Christ to Herod and no sentence of death was pronounced by the Tetrarch.' What the Bible Teaches; Vol.7. That is, Herod did not do anything with the Lord that would require the death sentence to be passed. That was the amazing thing! So Pilate said in that case he would just chastise the Lord and let Him go (v.16). If we accept 'D.G.'s translation, 'I sent you to Him [sic]; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done by Him', we would understand that Pilate had sent the chief priests and rulers to Herod, and amazingly, Christ did not do anything in front of Herod to warrant death. Pilate was already well aware that the Lord was not guilty of any offence. He did not need Herod to tell him that. He hoped that the evil Herod would destroy Him anyway. But Herod did not even put the Lord on trial. And do 'all modern translations agree that the AV is wrong here'? That statement is not justified by examination. Here is what one modern version says: 'No, nor Herod neither. For I sent you to him, and behold nothing worthy of death is done to him'. The Layman's New Testament; Sheed and Ward; 1927. Those who attack the AV often make sweeping statements without bothering to check the evidence. Luke 23 : 33 ....the place, which is called Calvary, .... Kranion, translated Calvary in Luke is “skull” in Mtt. 27: 33 and Mark 15: 22. a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull. Golgotha is of `Hebrew origin. Note John 19: 17, the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha. It is not a Chaldee word as lexicons will inform us. (Trust the Bible!) Why did the AV translators use the word Calvary in Luke? The answer is simple. They used the latin word calvaria which means skull. They did not wish to use the Hebrew Golgotha to translate a Greek word for English readers. They anglicised calvaria to give us Calvary. It is not a Roman Catholic word as some mischievously suggest. The English language is full of latin words (together with words drawn from a multitude of other languages). No fault can be found in reading Calvary at Luke 23: 33. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Also see Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. 1.John.3:1 Some are telling us that John never spoke of believers as being the sons of God. The above two verses show that he did, using two different words, uios and teknon. However, they say that the Greek word uios (son) is a title that John reserved solely for the Son of God. However, we note that the word is used in 1:42, 4:5,12,46,47,50,53, 9:19,20, 12:36, and 17:12 without reference to the Lord. The word uios may be equally translated child, Acts 13:10; children, John 4:12 etc. It is in his first two epistles that John reserves the title for the Son of God. So we find in modern versions the phrase "sons of God" being changed to "children of God". The difference, we are told, is that as children we are introduced into the family of God, and as sons we enjoy the dignity, heirship, and the spiritual blessing of being able to use the title Father in addressing God. All of which we do not dispute. But this does not give licence to alter the word of God. The AV reading is found in the Geneva Bible and other early translations. The AV translators saw no need for any change though they carefully considered the phrase. This is really another case of altering the Bible to fit one's theology. So I do believe that when I received Christ, and believed on His name as the Scripture instructed me, I then became one of the sons of God. That is what my Bible says. That is what has been held to for centuries, and I don't believe there is any need to change it now. Why not also change Rom.8:14,19 to read children of God? Why do modern versions not make the change here? The same Greek words are involved. The reason is a theological interpretation is being made, rather than a formal translation.

44 John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Wycliffe, having only the Latin Vulgate for his translation in 1380, wrote, ‘no man sai euer God, no but the oon bigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out’. The Vulgate reads, ‘Deum nemo vidit unquam, unigentius filius, qui est in sinus patris, ipse enarravit’. Oon bigetun sone = unigentius filius = the only begotten Son. These are all formally equivalent translations of the Greek verse as it appears in the Received Text. Tyndale’s reading is identical to the AV excepting that he has a full-stop after time, and not a semi-colon. The weight of evidence for the RT reading is massive. In which case one might wonder why the NASV reads, ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him’. J Moorman writes. This is the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of ‘intermediary gods.’ It is the trademark of corruption in the early Egyptian manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others.¾ Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. E F Hills draws our attention to the source of this error in his book Believing Bible Study, Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely Valentinus. Burgon pointed out that the first time John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines of Valentinus. …. What could be more probable than Dean Burgon’s suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten Son to the only begotten God.? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos). Valentinus may have been the perpetrator of the Egyptian Papyrus 75 which has this reading. This P75 was not used by Jerome as far as Jn.1:18 is concerned when he revised the Old Latin Bible in 382 AD. It is Jerome’s revision that became known as the Latin Vulgate. If Wycliffe knew of P75, he chose not to use it either. Tyndale and the AV translators knew about this alternative and rejected it. The NASV chose to use it. There are no grounds for omitting the word “begotten”. It speaks of the intimate relationship that ever existed and continues to exist between the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son, the One ever in the bosom of the Father. Wycliffe kept ‘begotten’ and so did Westcott and Hort. Hills points out that those who insist that begotten should always be omitted need to consider John 1:14, which they would be compelled to translate as ‘we have beheld his glory, glory as of an only from the Father’. That is nonsensical so they add the word Son without any authority whatsoever. John 1: 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. Modern versions deny that these things were done in Bethabara. They insist the place was Bethany. Metzger is attributed as saying that the reading was altered to read Bethabara “to remove difficulties which would require tedious explanation”. The Bible believer will find ample difficulty with Bethany. It is not “beyond” Jordan, but is about twenty miles from it, being close to Jerusalem and near to the Mount of Olives. Peran, translated “beyond” here, is several times translated “other side of”. John was baptizing in the Jordan at Bethabara, ten miles south of the Sea of Galilee. It was there the Lord came to John and there the Lord met the Galileeans Andrew, Peter, and Philip. The third day found the Lord still in Galilee at the wedding in Cana. We do not believe the Lord was in the proximity of Jerusalem on the first days of His public testimony. We find the usual depraved mss responsible for the change to Bethany; Siniaticus, Vaticanus and also the Vulgate. Origen boasted that “this obtained in almost all the copies if his time” (Smith’s Dictionary). Yet “altered” his edition of the gospels to read Bethabara.. Now where did he get that from? And why did Jerome keep Bethabara in his Onomasticon? It is Lachmann, Tischendorf, and other modern textual critics who have seized upon the two demonstratably corrupted mss to make the change from Bethabara to Bethany. Bethabara means House of Ford The Jordan was shallow and crossable at this point. John 3: 13

45 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. The NIV changes the verse to read, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaventhe Son of Man. The AV Bible teaches that the Lord was in two places at the same time. He was walking on earth and at the same time He was in heaven, because He is one with the Father. The NIV and other perversions rob Christ of His omnipresence which is an attribute of Deity. John 3:I5 Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but ha v e e te rnal life.. These gospel words are very precious to the believer and they are also very plain. The statement is mutilated in the RV where "should not perish" is omitted without any just cause and instead of the positive have, there is substituted "may have". Thus one can believe but eternal life yet remains uncertain. The same is found in the NIV. Some try and tell us that no doctrine is affected by changes in modern versions. The doctrine of salvation is attacked here and the full assurance of salvation is denied. This is further proof that modern versionism is in the hands of unholy and unregenerate men. John 3: 17 ....that the world through him might be saved (sozo). “He came to help, to put the world right again.” (The Message) This fiction is the work of Peterson who never believed in salvation through faith in Christ. His work is a very mischievous parody of the Scriptures. Christ did not come to sort out social injustices. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. The day is coming when He will establish His kingdom on earth. John 5: 3, 4 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water, for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. The words from “waiting for” to the end of verse 4 are omitted by the Critical Text. (Aland 26/27). They are regarded as a gloss by our modern scholars. Glosses are supposed changes to the original reading, made by copyists either intentionally, or by accident. Our modern scholars believe they are able to tell whether any reading is “original” or whether it is a gloss. Prof J Heading in his commentary on this passage wrote, Such a gloss was written in the margin of a manuscript not containing these words, as a sort of explanation to later readers who might wonder whatever the Jews were doing and thinking. a subsequent copyist of the text would then incorporate the gloss into the text itself, and that is why it appears in the TR from which the AV is translated. (What the Bible Teaches; Vol.6; p.87.J Ritchie Ltd.) Prof Heading did not offer this as a theory. It is published as a statement of fact. Did Prof Heading ever see such a manuscript with its marginal insert? Did he know where this manuscript might be found? Has any person ever seen this manuscript? The answers are all negative. If these words were not to be found in the “original” how is it that four of the Early Fathers- so called (Tatian, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Ambrose) quoted them? Dr Moorman points out that “The indexes of ANPF do not show any pre-400 AD Father quoting John 5: 2, 5 with the disputed portion omitted”. (Early Church Fathers and the Authorized Version.) Only the usual handful of mss omit this passage. It is found in the vast majority of mss. It is also found in the English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, and Athorized. Verse 7 is a testimony to the integrity of the passage. The paralyzed man testified to the miraculous stirrings of the water. Yet Heading’s exposition is,

46 The descent of an angel to heal the first one who steps into the moving waters is a strange concept, and quite out of keeping with the way God acts in both OT and NT, and would even appear to be a rival to the Lord Jesus in His divine capacity to heal. Faith is not unintelligent when it has to weigh up such a strange concept whose absence from the text is supported by many manuscripts. In fact, it was an intermittent natural spring whose waters had healing properties. “In fact” we are told, as Heading unfolds his wild theory. What “fact” is this, we wonder. What scientific or archaeological discoveries have been made in order to prove that the Bible is wrong here? Heading is proven to be false also concerning the many manuscripts. It may be Heading alsobelieved in the Lourdes superstition. Faith accepts what God has recorded in His word. We may not understand it but it is only the rationalist who will attempt to alter the word of God. John 6:20, 8:24,28,58, 13:19, 18:5,6,8 I am he (ego eime) The AV Bible rightly translates this as I am he in each case excepting John 8:58 where we read Before Abraham was, I am. The two Greek words may be translated either with or without the personal pronoun depending on the context. It would not make sense to place “he” in 8:58 for that would suggest that the Lord was Abraham before Abraham was. The “I am” here speaks of the deity of the Lord Jesus, a claim clearly recognized by the Jews as they took up stones to stone Him. They did not fall to the ground as those did in 18:6. In ch.18 “he” is clearly required in order to make the statement intelligible in English. The Lord spoke the words I am he in ch.18 to fully identify Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, thereby protecting His disciples and fulfilling the Scripture (v.9) That this had a supernatural impact on those present is evident in their falling to the ground but we do not see this as an act of worship as some do, because it did not happen on previous occasions when the Lord spoke the words. Here they quickly picked themselves up and proceeded to take the Lord prisoner. We note the careful use of italics in the AV Bible. Words are given in italics to indicate to the reader that the word is not found in the Greek but is required in the English translation for the sake of accuracy and meaning. There are multitudes of such additions in modern versions without any indication to the reader. Those who claim these words to be an expression of deity, and that he should be omitted from the reading will have to grant the same for the man who received his sight in John 9: 9. He identified himself likewise with the words “I am he,” (ego eime) John 6:47 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Most modern versions omit “on me”. The manuscript evidence in favour of “on me” is overwhelming while manuscript evidence for omission is flimsy (see Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version: J Moorman). Even the Catholic Doauy Version has “in me”. John’s Gospel has the preposition eis (translated “in” or “on”) after the verb pisteuw (=I believe) thirty three times. It might be argued therefore that one omission can make very little difference to doctrine, but it needs only one fly in the ointment to make the ointment stink. If we find but one fly we might expect soon to find another...and another...until the whole is a putrefying mess. But that is what we find in modern versions and it is not found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. The omission here is critical. If belief in Christ is not specified, then everlasting life may be gained by believing anything. So, we find an article that assures its readers that the person who believes the Nicene Creed is a Christian. This kind of error arises through a reliance on a defective bible. It is faith in Christ alone that brings salvation. John 6: 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. The TBS Quarterly Record no.566 draws our attention to Scofield’s marginal note, ‘Or, we have believed and come to understand that thou art the Holy One of God’

47 This separates the Lord from the Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. Scofield’s “or” hides the fact that his note is based on the critical text and implies that the marginal reading is on a par with the given reading. (The NA text makes 81 changes in John 6 – more than one for every verse.) The omission of “that Christ” is made on the flimsiest of evidence. The words are omitted by seven mss (out of thousands); plus two Coptic mss and seven Gothic/Armenian/Ethiopian mss. The NA and the UBS have been unable to quote a single cursive omitting the words. They are found in all the major English translations:Wycliffe. Tyndale, Geneva, Rheims. Great Bible and 1611 AV. We note that Wycliffe and the Rheims were based on the Latin Vulgate! We see the damage done by Scofield even to this day in the number of brethren who blindly follow his notes. It is of little wonder that rationalism is strong among our teaching brethren who place such emphasis on those who follow a critical text as Scofield did. John 7: 8 I go not up yet unto this feast. J N Darby thought the Lord was capable of lying for he leaves the word “yet” (oupo) out of his translation. Not even the NIV does this! Neither does the JW New World Translation omit the word. Darby would have thought the Authorized Version to be on a par with these parodies of Scripture ― otherwise he would not have considered himself endowed with power to rewrite the whole Bible single-handed. Darby was wrong. oupo is omitted by very few manuscripts. John 7: 39 (....for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) Clarke writes in his commentary, “Δεδομενον, “given” is added by the Codex Vaticanus,(B) the Syriac, all the Persic, later Syriac with an asterisk, three copies of the Slavonic, Vulgate, and all the Itala but three; and several of the primitive fathers. The word seems necessary to the completion of the sense.” To which last sentiment we concur. The AV translators were more faithful in that they put given in italics. Italics in the AV are to show which English words have been necessarily added to make sense of the Hebrew/Greek reading. The pedant, J N Darby, not finding given in the Greek, leaves the word out of his translation. so he writes “the Spirit was not yet,” leaving his readers to assume the Holy Ghost did not exist at that time. John 7: 53-8: 11 And every man went unto his own house…..Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more. “[John 7: 53] and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.” — Adam Clarke. Clarke was an 18th C. Methodist theologian. He rejected the eternal sonship of Christ.). He makes plain where he stood regarding the verbal inspiration and faithful preservation of Scripture. He didn’t believe it. This passage remains rejected by the Textual Critics and Christendom at large. Bible teachers and many brethren who regard themselves as fundamentalist have allowed themselves to be influenced by the Textual Critics and rationalistic commentators. Dr D Sorenson writes, “The Scofield Reference Bilbe, perhaps more than any other one edition, was the Bible of choice by Fundamentalists of America in the twentieth century. However C. I. Scofield also taught that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the earliest and best manuscripts available. ….. In John 7: 53, Scofield adds a footnote: ‘John 7: 53-8: 11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.” — Touch not the Unclean Thing; David H Sorenson. Scofield’s main reason for rejecting this passage was that it is not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and therefore has no real authority. The two popish manuscripts are seriously depraved and stand against the vast majority of manuscripts containing the passage. (see Few Fundamentalists Have Investigated the Issue in By The Way… below)

48 John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Bible critics seize on this verse as evidence of a defective translation in the AV. They have pointed out that the second fold (Gk.poimnee )should be translated "flock" because a different Greek word is used for each, the first fold being aulee. They think that the AV translators were too dull to notice the two different words. They clamour for Dynamic Equivalence but deny that liberty to the AV. So let our revisionists be consistent and make the verse read, "other sheep I have which are not of this palace", for that is how Darby translates aulee in Mt.26:3. These men will have to defend themselves so they tell us, "The difference is vital. Israel as a nation was kept in by a wall of separation (Eph.2:14) as in a fold. But today the ‘other sheep’ of the believing Gentiles are formed into ‘one flock’ with the believing Jews, and this is held together not by an external code of laws but by a common attraction to the ‘one Shepherd’. As has often been truly said, we are not all held in by a wall around us, we are all drawn in by a Shepherd in the midst of us." (JGT, Present Truth, Vol.8. No.93. When we look at the context we see that boundaries are very much in view, even for the flock of God. If there is no wall round this flock then a door (v.9) is totally superfluous for us today. Common attraction does not hold sheep. Though the grass be ever so green where they are, yet they remain prone to wander. So His sheep are held secure in His hand and in His Father's hand. From that enfolding none can be plucked out and none can wander off. Of course, the true believer loves his Lord and loves the Shepherd's voice. So they will not follow a stranger. There are none stranger than the modern versionists. Thus our translators knew what they were doing when they translated poimnee as fold, even though they translated it as flock in Mt.26:31, Lk.2:8, and 1 Cor.9:7. Objectors will have to believe that they were opposed to the teaching of the Holy Spirit in their translation. Those who have looked into the vexed question of modern versions know where the opposition lies. Dynamic Equivalence is interpretation, rather than translation. The AV Translators used Formal Equivalence which is word for word translation as far as they were able. That means verb for verb, noun for noun, tense for tense etc. Modern men care nothing for this because they do not believe in verbal inspiration. Here is an example:- "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable". Romans 11:29 RSV. There is no Greek word in the NT that can be translated "irrevocable" and it is the calling that is being spoken of, not the call, which is without repentance. A few days after I was saved in 1955 I bought a copy of the RSV. The young brother who got me to go to the gospel meeting where I was then saved urged me to throw it in a dustbin. That was sound advice though it took me a few years to see it. The RSV is a pollution. We see it quoted in popular Christian journals with much sadness. John 13:2 And supper being ended…. "During supper", says Darby. "The evening meal was being served", says the NIV. "Supper having come", say others. Did the AV translators make a careless mistake, not noticing that the same chapter describes the supper continuing? Could they have been that stupid? Was it not rather that they had too rigid an approach to the Received Text so that they would have to blindly translate something that did not make sense? Many think so, with little consideration of the issues. First, let us say that the AV is an accurate and faithful translation of the Received Text. Godet points out that genomenou (having taken place), is the reading of the received Text with ALL the other Maj. Mss.,all the Mins. and Versions and Origen (once); ginomenou (taking place), is the reading of Aleph ,B L M X Or (four times). These latter five mss. (Five against thousands) are seriously depraved, but the critics "prefer" these to the overwhelming evidence in favour of the AV reading. Origen was one of the first correctors of Scripture. He was the first to teach much of what the JW's hold to. Those who make changes to the AV today follow his tradition. They are his children. There were of course two suppers that night. It was the last time that the "Passover Supper" was to be observed by the Lord's disciples. So that supper being ended, something new was to be introduced. It would be preceded by the example of feet washing and then would follow the "Lord's Supper".

49 John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life. Men will use their defective grasp of the English language in order to malign the Scriptures, which is what so often happens when they attack the language of the Authorized Bible. An example, heard recently, is the misquoting of this verse to make it read, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.". The critics will have us to know that there are two "ands" in the Greek text. (They only use the Greek when it suits them, otherwise they hold to what they call Dynamic Equivalence which means they can make it up as they go.) The translators of the AV went in for accurate translation (known as Formal Translation ) but knew that in the English language a sentence carrying enumerations requires an "and" only between the last two items. Between earlier enumerations a comma suffices. Note the clumsy rendering of the verse by JND, Hort, the NIV, and others. If brethren do not understand plain English, how can they possibly expound the English Bible to us? Yet they will boast that they know a few Greek words. Let readers be assured that God is competent to produce an English Bible that we may safely refer to as the Scriptures, from cover to cover. Scripture does not, and cannot change but all modern versions change because their authors believe in an evolving bible. John 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words. Modern versions have ….”he will keep my word”. The critics will protest an error in the AV for making logos plural when in the Greek it is singular. In this the modern men lose the import of the statement. They think that the word may be kept in a general sense and individual words do not matter. It is the “message” that counts. This is claimed as licence to remove words they do not like and to add others that are not in the text. It is not only a matter of practising the Lord’s teaching, which all who love the Lord do. Those who keep the Lord’s words preserve them. The AV men were well aware that ton logon in this verse embraces all the words of God. Those who hack it about with their pseudo-scholarship display a lack of love to Christ and come under the judgment of Rev. 22:19. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. Some young believers who for a while may be misled by the critic teachers, may not come under this judgment. Those men who boast that they have examined the version issue and then publicly condemn the Authorized Bible are in a different situation, placing themselves under the judgment of God. However, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men. We pray for our teachers who think it smart to tell their congregations where the Bible is wrong. We know that many of them think it scholarly to be critical and they like to make an impression on their audiences. John 18: 5,6 I am he. (ego eime) Those who claim this to be an expression of deity, and that he should be omitted from the reading will have to grant the same for the man who received his sight in John 9: 9. He identified himself likewise with the words “I am he,” (ego eime) See my notes on John 18: 5,6 in AV Verses Vindicated, Vol.1, Matt – Romans. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; "What He really said was, 'don't cling to me.' " says one of our preachers. The reason for abandoning the AV reading is, we are told, that the verb (haptomai) may be translated as "to cling to, to lay hold of”. But in the 36 times the word is used in the NT it is never used in this sense. An examination of some of the references shows that it cannot be used in this sense. Then touched he their eyes, Mt.8:29., He spit, and touched his tongue. Mk.7:33. He touched his ear. Lk.22:51. In 1 Cor.7:1 the sense is it is good for a man to have not even the least physical contact with a woman. If here it means that clinging to a woman is what is in view, then lesser physical contact is by implication condoned. We are satisfied that Mary never attempted to cling to the Lord. Why would she do after His resurrection what she most certainly would never have done before? Who dare say that Mary's touch would have been more than the touching of the Lord's feet in prostrated worship? The insinuation of our Bible correctors is a smear on the character of Mary. They do no more than to slavishly

50 repeat the savage attacks on Scripture by those critics who have gone before them. Acts 1:18,19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity....that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Why change what is obvious and for which there are no textual variations? Three times in these two verses a field is referred to but some preachers like to appear to have special knowledge. So we are told that our Bible is wrong when it speaks of a field. It should be a farm. Luke couldn’t have been aware of this, assuming we don’t believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture anyway. Judas bought a field and it was still a field after he died for the name Aceldama tells us so. He may have built a house on the land as verse 21 suggests, but there is no authority for calling it a farm and there is no excuse for contradicting the word of God. The ground had been known as the potter’s field and the chief priests bought this land after Judas’s death, using the thirty pieces of silver, and turned it into a burial ground for strangers. Strangely, in a different context, another preacher tells us that the Lord was born in a field—and therefore not in Bethlehem as Matt.2:1 so plainly tells us. We know very well that inns in NT times usually had stables attached to them (often in the basement) and mangers would be provided for the animals. Scripture is being contradicted more and more by our preachers who want to impress us with their “inside” knowledge. They become modern day Gnostics. Acts 1: 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. It is alleged by some that “bishoprick” is one of the ecclesiastical words to be kept in the translation of the AV Bible. They seem unsure whether it was King James or Archbishop Bancroft who ordered it. We note that in 1 Peter 5:2 the word episkopeo is translated “oversight” and not, as we might have thought the Archbishop would have demanded, “bishopric”. Note also “overseers” for episkopos in Acts 20: 28. Perhaps even Bancroft thought that a faithful translation was more important than a mere clinging to ecclesiastical terms. Bishoprick is a translation of the Greek episcope translated the office of a bishop in 1 Tim.3 :1. (nb. The phrase is not in italics) and visitation in Lk.19: 44 and 1 Pet.2: 12. The Old English form of the word was biskop (or bisceop ) and appears in Wycliffe as bishopriche in 1 Tim.3: 1 and Acts 1: 20. Tyndale has bisshoprycke and so Matthew’s Bible has bishopric. The Geneva Bible has “the room of this ministration”. The AV translation is therefore a move back to what it had been. Episkope is literally translated “oversight” (this word occurring only once in the AV New testament, at 1 Pet. 5: 2) This was the role (office) occupied by the Apostles, of which Judas was one). The AV reading causes no problem to the Bible believer. He will not want to tear the word out of his Bible simply because it has been hijacked and abused by men wishing to develop their own ecclesiastical hierarchies. There are many similar Bible words abused and misused today. We shall not surrender them to ungodly men. Acts 2: 30 Therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;… The prophecy is that Christ would one day sit on the throne of David. This has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled in the future millennial reign of Christ. Prophecies relating to Christ, yet unfulfilled, are scorned by Christ rejectors, so the NIV reads, “But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne”. This might be any person. David knew that in a future day Christ Himself would occupy the throne of David. This is an embarrassment to A-millenialists of course which accounts form their mutilation of Scripture. Acts2: 47 And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Modern versions omit “the church” (ekklesia). The Lord used the word first in Matt.16: 18, I will build my church; showing that prior to this the church did not exist. It was not to be Israel in new guise. The church was not to be

51 introduced solely because of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. It was in the mind of God from eternity. In Acts 5: 11 we see an established church. When we come to Acts 9 we find a multiplicity of churches (v.31). The word Ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. So why omit it in Acts 2? The reason is not hard to find; it disturbs Covenant Theology which refuses to recognise the differences between the Church and Israel.. Acts 4: 24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Modern versions alter Thou art God to “thou art he”. Men do not like the deity of God to be acknowledged. The expression is in the Received Text. Acts 4:27,30 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed....by the name of thy holy child Jesus. These verses link the deity of Christ with his virgin birth. The word “child” appears in Tyndale, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible and even in the RC Rheims bible. Also there is not one ms. giving doulos (=servant). The Greek word used is pais which the AV Translators were well aware may be translated “child” or “servant according to the context. Thus, He hath holpen his servant Israel (Luke 1:54) and healed the child (Luke 9:42). If we read “servant” instead of “child” in Acts 4:27,30 then Christ is brought down to the level of a sinning man for in the same context we read thy servant David. (v.25). Again we see the spiritual intelligence of the AV Translators. Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God This verse is missing entirely from all modern versions because it is a crystal clear confession of faith in Jesus Christ being the Son of God. It is a confession essential to any conversion. Darby in a footnote in his New Translation wrote, "v.37 in the Authorized Version is recognized as not genuine". If a lie is stated boldly some folk will believe it. However, it has been pointed out that the verse was quoted by Irenaeus 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written. It is cited by Cyprian 90 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, and it has an unbroken chain of testimony from the Old Latin (2nd Cent.) and the Vulgate (5th Cent.) to the uncial manuscript "E" (6th to 7th Cent.) to the present time.(P Ruckman, Problem Texts; p.331.) So why do some of our brethren refute the verse? Is it not because some of them are pseudo-brethren? (2 Cor.11:26). If the verse is not recognized it is because the god of this world hath blinded their minds. Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth unto the people. Bible critics seize upon this verse in order to try to prove that the AV reading, Easter, is wrong. They are anxious to tell us that the true rendering should be "Passover". They ignore the wealth of evidence against the notion, and the volumes that have been written on the subject. A very useful defence of the use of the word Easter can be found in The Answer Book by Dr S G Gipp. Yet we find the question raised again, "Is the word "Easter" just an inaccurate translation? Is Easter a Christian or a Jewish festival? The reply given, in Question Box; Believers Magazine, Dec.96. was "The actual word used in Acts 12:4 is Pascha and is of Aramaic origin. It refers to the Passover.... Thus Herod was waiting until after the Passover period was over". We reply, "How thoughtful of him. How kind and compassionate he must have been to the Jews. It mattered not that they had killed the Lord on Passover Day itself. But is it the ACTUAL (i.e. the word I read in my Bible) word used? What about this? I open my Bible and find the ACTUAL word used is EASTER. The conclusion I must come to is that my Bible is not the ACTUAL word of God. And of course, no Bible on earth is the ACTUAL word of God because, insist the critics, God's ACTUAL words disappeared with the original manuscripts.

52 The New Nicolaitans will now inform us what is and what is not the ACTUAL word of God. These men now teach that we cannot, dare not, trust our Bible without the help of their scholarship. But all ought to be aware by now that 99.9% of all scholarship is apostate and has been so for the last 5000 years. Scholarship built the tower of Babel. (For a history of apostate scholarship begin reading at Gen.4:17-24. "Enoch"= initiated!). Our translators were well aware that Pascha usually means "Passover". This is why they translated it thus 28 out of the 29 times where the word is found in the NT. They also knew that the Passover feast had in fact already gone and so a very significant phrase is inserted; then were the days of unleavened bread, these days being the days that follow immediately after the feast of the Passover. They also knew that Herod was a Roman idolater whose god, Astarte, was the "Queen of Heaven", to be worshipped particularly at sunrise on Easter Morning. So, led by the Spirit of God, the word "Easter" was placed by the translators on to the Holy page of Scripture. There was no Greek word for Easter so Pascha had to be used by Luke and to avoid confusion he reminded his readers that these were the days of unleavened bread when Peter was seized. And no, Easter was not at that time a Christian feast. It never has been a Christian feast. The celebration of Easter in any form remains a Pagan rite, along with the celebration of the Christ-mass. (see further notes at Gal.4:10) Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Critics tell us that “again” ought not to be in the verse. Not finding any manuscript variation, they quote from spurious authorities for its exclusion ¾JND and the RV. Of course, they might well quote from almost any other modern version, but that might put brethren on their guard. We quote In Acts 13.33, where the AV reads, ''God hath fulfilled the same unto us. . .in that he hath raised up Jesus again'', note that the RV and JND, with others, omit the word ''again''. This is not the raising up of Jesus again from the dead, in resurrection, as in vv. 30 and 34. It is His being raised up amongst them as a man, as was David in v.22, ''He raised up unto them David''. This is obviously not resurrection. So, ''Of this man's seed hath God. . .raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (v.23) . In connection with this true manhood, the apostle quotes the second Psalm in v.33. A Man had been raised up among them who was God's Son. ¾J Flannigan; What the Bible Teaches; Psalms; p23 So why does JND, in Matt.20:19, have “ the third day he shall rise again” and in 1 Thes. 4:13 “Jesus has died and has risen again”. The same word is used here, assuring us that the word in Acts 13:33 is the proper word for resurrection. It is a serious thing when brethren tamper with the word of God to promote their theological opinions. Also note Jn.11:23. Flannigan’s note is from his commentary on Psalm 2 where he denies the Son to be eternally the only-begotten of the Father. This error is the product of Arianism. John tells us no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn.1:18). Again, God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (1 Jn.4:9). This is an eternal relationship. Acts 13:48 as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. This certainly appears to be a difficult verse for those who oppose Calvinism. Fisk, in his otherwise excellent book Calvinistic Paths Retraced, suggests that the AV translators were biased by their Calvinistic views when they came to this verse, and were influenced by the Latin Vulgate. He wrote: 'certain blunders many Protestants have fallen into are traceable to errors springing from that same Vulgate, which misconceptions members of the "Reformed faith" seem reluctant to acknowledge or turn from.' (p.68). Fisk apparently does not believe that the AV Bible is the verbally inspired word of God. Presumably he does not believe that God's hand was in this translation in preserving it from error. Though the AV translators may have been largely "Calvinistic", they were a mixed company of Anglicans and Puritans who were godly men committed to producing a faithful and accurate English translation. They did not allow their doctrinal views to colour the translation. They did not blindly follow the Vulgate. Their work was based almost entirely on William Tyndale's translation. Tyndale has been described as the Father of the English Bible.

53 In any case the chairman of the translating committee, Lancelot Andrewes was by no means a Calvinist. (See Waymarks No.24). David Cloud comments, concerning Tyndale's background, "It is possible, then, that Tyndale's family, or at least some of his near relatives, were Anabaptists, though that is not certain. We know that Tyndale associated himself, at least through letters from the continent, with a body of independent Christians in London." Cloud then quotes historian John Christian, "It is certain he shared many views held by the Baptists. He always translated the word eclesia by the word congregation, and held to a local congregation of a church....made up of believers. Baptism was a plunging into the water. Baptism to avail must include repentance, faith and confession." (O Timothy; Vol.16, issue 12, 1999,p.4. We have this account of John Fryth, Tyndale's brilliant and like-minded friend, "Fryth fled to the Continent in the autumn of 1526 and joined Tyndale for some time, before returning to England to minister in the separated churches. There were a number of congregations that were meeting in England in those days entirely independently of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and many of the pastors of these congregations were martyred for their faith. Fryth was one of these. Ibid. p.13. Fisk goes on to say that Alford renders it “as many as were disposed to eternal life”, to which the Calvinists will reply, "Yes, and God disposed them to it.". Fisk quotes a number of unconverted scholars to defend his rejection of the Scripture as many as were ordained stating that it is not the usual word for "ordain" that is used in this verse. In fact there are ten Greek words that have been translated as "ordained" in the AV NT. The Greek word (tasso) used in Acts 13:48 is also "ordained" in Rom. 13:1 the powers that be are ordained of God. It is "appointed" in Mat.28:16, Acts 22:10, 22:23. He should have pointed out that it is not the word for "foreordained" that is used, because only God can foreordain. Men can make their ordinations and the Gentiles in this context had certainly done that. So although these Gentiles were indeed disposed to eternal life because they had accepted and believed the gospel, there is nothing wrong with the word ordain. We don't have to let the Reformists make us frightened of what we read in the word of God. What the verse does NOT say is as many as were ordained to believe... . God never predestined, or ordained, or foreordained, or elected, any soul to believe or indeed to be saved. God's ordination is to eternal life, and this is granted to all who believe the gospel. Whosoever WILL may come. That free will is involved is seen in Acts13:46, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. Acts 16: 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. The NASB has “ … and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” But the Lord opens the heart of any who are willing to respond to His word. Having had her heart opened she still had to attend to Paul’s ministry, and she still had to voluntarily submit herself to it. We must not think her heart was opened against her free will. Acts 17:22 Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. The Bible critics are sure that Paul would never have said anything so offensive. They think he was quite neutral in his speech and merely said, “I see that in every way you are very religious”. (NIV). Most modern versions read similarly. When James wrote of the religious man he used the Greek word threeskos and then defined pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father using the word threeskia (James 1:26,27). Paul did not use these words. He warned the Athenians that they were disidaimonesteros, i.e. they were giving undue reverence to evil spirits. Paul was not trying to channel their religious fervour in the right direction. He pointed out to them in as plain speech as possible that evil spirits were behind every one of their altars. Worship at these altars was therefore a superstition, an irrational reverence borne out of a fear and dread of the unknown (occult). All the religions, sects, cults, and denominations of this world are superstitions and are idolatrous. As such they are an abomination to God and the Father. Those who tear at the word of God today are unconverted religionists

54 and we are not surprised to find them recoiling at the words of the apostle. Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Critics claim “robbers of churches” to be wrongly translated. The Greek word is hierosulous and should read “robbers of temples”. But the Ephesians recognised only one temple, that of Diana. It is clear that the word has a broader meaning here and so the AV men used “church” in the sense allowed by the O E D.—“Applied to other (chiefly modern) religious societies and organisations”. An example of older usage is seen in Sir Thomas More ( In Heresyes, 1528: “Ye doo persecute them as the churche of the Paynims [i.e. pagans] did” So we understand that Paul could not be charged with desecrating any religious buildings. The defect is not in the translation but in the understanding of those who criticise it. Acts 20:28 …the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood. Bible believers take this to be a clear statement of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse is accurately translated from reliable manuscripts. Because the verse shows Christ to be God it has long been a source of contention to some. J Heading wrote, "the translation 'purchased with His own blood' can be paraphrased [my italics] more helpfully as 'purchased with the blood of His own Son' (Acts, p.254). He knew that it could not be translated thus. There is no authority whatever for the inclusion of 'Son' in the Greek text. So Heading paraphrased 'more helpfully'! This is an attempt to improve on the work of the Holy Spirit Who supplied and preserves all Scripture. Hort was the first to include 'Son' in his Greek text, though they dared not print it in the Westcott/Hort RV Bible. Darby's New Translation reads 'with the blood of His own' which is ambiguous and not good English. W Kelly confessed that "the expression as it stands in the Authorized and Revised versions is unexampled in Scripture [must every unique statement of Scripture be abandoned then?] and what is more,.... it is peculiarly embarrassing for the Christian scholar." (Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,p.309). But who are these Christian scholars? the wine-bibbing, necromancing Westcott and Hort were two of them. If you know of a Christian scholar not marked by rationalism, I would like to know his name. Kelly went on to say that if the true text is as it appears in the Received Text, we must translate it as in the AV. Well that is exactly how it is. Only a few perverted manuscripts change it. It is indeed the true text. Acts 20: 28 (a) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.... “...in the which..” (RV, ESV, etc.). David Oliver, in Truth and Tidings (Nov. 07) wrote, The Authorized Version is misleading in translating [this] verse, It is assumed that the AV translators were unlettered clods. Such is the crass ignorance of those who make such an assumption. The Greek preposition en is translated “over” in the AV Bible at this verse. The translators were well aware of the wide use of en as does the Bible student who has learned to use his Greek lexicon. There are many words in the English language that can be used legitimately to translate en besides “in”. The choice depends on the context. The object is “overseers”, one who oversees or superintends, therefore the most suitable English preposition is “over”. This in no way diminishes the fact the overseer is first a brother among his brethren. David Oliver presumably does not believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Bible. He thinks the ESV is “more accurate”.