23039563 Av Verses Rom To Rev To 59

55 AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks issues 1-59) Romans to Revelation Romans 1: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:…. “for I am not ashamed of the gospel:” RV, NRSV, ESV, etc. “For I am not ashamed of the glad tidings;” JND “The words, ‘of Christ’, which follow here, are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.” —JFB Commentary. The “oldest and best” manuscripts are those rejected by the early churches. Hence they have been preserved in monastery dustbins and Vatican vaults. The words “of Christ” are found in the majority of manuscripts. They have been removed too often from other verses for us to regard it as accidental on the part of scribes. This is a wilful satanic attack on Scripture. What gospel is it where Christ is removed? All that is left is an anaemic mess that offends no one and brings none to the Saviour. Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. These words, as they appear in the AV Bible have brought comfort to a myriad of believers. The peace spoken of is the present possession of every soul justified by faith, i.e. of every born again believer. But the RV would rob us of this peace, making it a thing to be striven for, even after conversion, by altering the reading to “therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God.” But our peace has been secured on the cross once and for all. Metzger (whose feminized NRSV has now hit the market) would have us to believe that the 'error' came about and was perpetuated in the vast majority of manuscripts because scribes, copying by dictation, misheard a word. However the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus scribes managed to hear correctly. Romans 5:11 .... we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Some commentators (Newell on Romans) like to tell us that the atonement is an Old Testament subject, not taught in the New Testament. Reconciliation replaces Atonement. F E Stallan, in What the Bible Teaches says this about this verse, The word rendered “atonement” in the AV is better rendered “reconciliation”. In v.10 the verb form (katalasso) is given; in this verse it is the noun (katallage). The work of atonement is the offering of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice [Stallan doesn’t agree with Newell – R. S.]. This could not be received by mankind. What has been received is the reconciliation, the change of state from being enemies to being “accepted in the beloved” (Eph.1:6). Reconciliation is the effect of atonement. If the atonement is not a New Testament truth, then, as Stallan shows, we cannot be reconciled either. This raises the issue; why then is it necessary to tamper with the English translation? Some will tell us it is for the sake of consistency, because only one root Greek word is used throughout. The beauty of the English language is in its breadth. In a multitude of places there are

55

56 many English words that can adequately translate one Greek word. The AV translators gave expression to this when Dr Smith wrote, “For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? [keep in mind that Dr Smith was writing about translation and not about inspiration – R. S.].Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?” Translating for King James; John Bois’s notes edited by Ward Allen. We point out that this is not the same as that practiced by the modern versionists. The AV translators nevertheless used formal equivalence whereas the modern practice is to use dynamic equivalence. In the verse under revue, you will note that at “atonement” in the AV Bible, a marginal alternative is given, i.e. “or, reconciliation”. This instructs us that the translators considered the choice of translation carefully and were all agreed that “atonement” was the better word for this particular verse, though they had translated the Greek word differently elsewhere. We can say that ALL the translators were in agreement, for in the case of different words being suggested, John Bois recorded them and gave the reasons why they should not be included in the body of the translation. He made NO notes on Romans 5:11, so we conclude that ALL were agreed that "“reconciliation" would have no more than a marginal reference. We learn then, that in 1611AD “atonement” and “reconciliation” were almost synonymous but that “atonement” carried the fuller meaning in this instance. The Romish Douay version of 1582AD was the first English bible to change from “atonement”. The word is found in Tyndale, Geneva, etc. I have copies of all these books mentioned and have checked it out for myself. I also have a facsimile 1611AD Bible. Rome is behind all modern versions. Would that our brethren who love to appear scholarly would check out the facts for themselves also. Atonement in the 16th century meant at-one-ment (according to my etymological dictionary). The believer has received this being at-one-ment with God and thereby is reconciled to God. What joy we have in God! I believe in the New Testament teaching of atonement because I read it in my New Testament. Stallan in his statement above, “this [atonement] could not be received by mankind” demonstrates the critical view that if words of Scripture conflict with one’s theology then the Scripture must be changed and not the theology. Romans 6:3 so many of us as were baptized Some have inferred from these verses that some believers were not baptized. As English is no longer taught we can understand the confusion of some today. They do not realise that a relative pronoun would be needed to produce this interpretation, and the verse would read "as many of us as were baptized". In this context "so many" means whosoever. Anybody at all who was baptized into Jesus Christ was thereby baptized into His death. The verse is not speaking of waterbaptism, a view which supports the difficulty that some have with the verse, but with a spiritual experience. If it were water-baptism in view, then I didn't begin to walk in newness of life until some time after I was born again. I believe that Romans 6 gives us the doctrinal import of what happens at conversion, which is then publicly proclaimed in the act of water-baptism. Scripture does not recognize unbaptized believers. The NT teaching demands total immersion upon confession of faith. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The words 'who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit' are omitted from modern versions. We note what various commentators have to say about it.

56

57 · The words are probably a gloss introduced from v.4………Dean Alford. · Chrysostom accepted this verse as part of the text………….Sadler. [ he stood very much alone in his view] · The Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, with Origen and Athanasius omit the phrase………… Sanday and Headlam · These words are wanting in the foremost representations of every group of authorities (except, perhaps, those which belong to the region of Syria)……. Ellicot. The group of commentators given above do not offer their own opinions. They were not dogmatic. They recorded what they thought they had discovered. We have long since learned how far off from the truth they were, concerning the RT. Egypt was the home of apostasy and was Origen's stamping ground after he had been excommunicated. Syria was where the gospel was established. The Syriac Peshitta was probably the first faithful translation of the word of God. This gives us an insight into the background of Bible mutilation. We see a false bible emerging before the end of the second century AD. But now consider another group of commentators. These were men who were among us in assembly fellowship: · “The latter part of the verse is wrongly inserted. According to the most authoritative mss the right position of that clause is at the end of v.4”……… Vine. · “[The words] are not part of the original text of v.1 (cf.RV RSV NEB) but were introduced under the influence of verse 4b where they properly belong”…FF Bruce · “The latter half of the verse is considered to be an interpolation and should be omitted. It comes in at 4.4 which is its proper place”………FE Stallan. · Darby omitted the phrase from his New Translation without even a footnote to explain its absence. He is guilty of taking from the word of God. These men passed judgment on the word of God and were ready to alter it. They did not merely record what others had said. So what is the evidence? For inclusion The majority of the cursive manuscripts, plus the Old Latin Version. For exclusion Aleph *, B C D* F G, and a few cursives. This handful of excluding mss are the same popish mss that we keep coming up against. They form the basis of the modern versions, particularly the first two mss. It is with deep regret and utter dismay that we find so many of our present leading Bible teachers following the apostate line and doing so with such dogmatism against all the evidence. Romans 8: 28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. James White has “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” This is the NASB version which White quotes in the book Debating Calvinism – five points, two view, which he co-authors with Dave White.

57

58 Romans 9: 11-12 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. Some have suggested that the opening words the children are not in the original and should be omitted. The omission will make it easier to refute Calvinistic teaching. One writer (Chosen in Christ; James Crookes; J Ritchie Ltd. P.20) says “The words ‘the children’ are actually not in the original text, and their interpolation obscures Paul’s argument.” The writer presumably does not understand why the AV Bible has words in italics. Words in italics indicate that the word or words are not present in Greek or Hebrew but are needed to make better sense in the English translation. If the words the children were to be omitted from the verse no change would be made to the meaning —“For being not yet born…..It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.” The omission therefore calls for an ellipsis as the reader might ask himself the question, “Who being not yet born?” and finds the answer in the context, Rebecca’s children, the twins Jacob and Esau. The book Chosen in Christ was written to refute the claims of Calvinism. Calvinism is false of course in every respect, but the case is severely weakened if a writer thinks he must rubbish the Authorized Bible to prove it. We add that the election of v.11 does not relate to salvation. To argue that because God in His sovereignty dealt with certain individuals in a special way, God therefore planned from eternity to elect certain other individuals to salvation is tenuous at the very least. Romans 9: 29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. D Kaus, in his book Choosing a Bible, writes that Paul─ uses the Greek word that means “descendants” (sperma, “seed”) instead of “survivors”, thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage. Kaus is stating that it is not the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himself got it wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didn’t understand Isaiah’s prophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted critic can now help us! He also wants us to understand that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOT responsible for its authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantly supplied the wrong word. Take warning — if you do not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture, and if you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible today, there is little likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven. Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors. Joel 2: 32 is instructive; And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Isaiah did not write of those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. They were those who were called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writing about. God’s survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to hell.

58

59

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. The Good News [?] bible changes this to "if you confess that Jesus is Lord. And believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved". In this one verse the GNB makes five major changes, (ignoring the change of singular thou to plural you). The point of the passage is missed in its presentation of the double testimony¾heart and mouth¾internal and external evidence of the possession of salvation. The tense is changed from shalt confess; shalt believe, (aorist in the Greek) to present, thereby losing the impact of the imperative nature of the command to confess and believe. Then, the Lord was not raised from death. One might be brought back from death, but not raised from it. The Scripture tells us that the Lord was raised from (among) the dead. A more serious change is the alteration of Scripture to read Jesus is Lord. This has given rise to the popular "Jesus is Lord" slogan that we see everywhere. It robs Christ of His deity. Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Phil.2:11. So in Rom.10:9, there is no verb (is). Rather, the confession is to the whole person of Christ, the Lord Jesus. The emphasis is not solely upon His Lordship but upon His full possession of deity and humanity Romans 10: 15 How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.” NRSV etc. The gospel of peace is rejected in modern versions. It is not wanted by the earthling who lusts rather for material things. Peace with God is brought through preaching. It calls for repentance and faith and does not fit in with modern evangelicalism. The words gospel of peace are well established in the majority of manuscripts and ancient translations. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa. 57: 21 Romans 14: 10 ….for we must all stand before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ. “for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” ESV, NRSV “for we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God.” JND Altering the Scripture to read judgment seat of God makes Christ a liar, for He said The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John 5: 20. The judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers (we must all stand). But God has a throne. It is not described as a bema. It is where all unbelievers will stand, at the end of time and it is a throne. There will be no pleading one’s case at this throne. All present will be consigned to the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 15 It is a false notion to believe that the whole human race will appear before God at the end of time. Romans 15: 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God.... “....and do the work of a priest in the service of his good news” CEV. “.... in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” ESV “....I serve as a priest by spreading the Good News of God.” GW “....serving as a priest of God’s good news.” HCSB Commentators and modern versions of Scripture are almost universally agreed that Paul, according to this verse, acted as a priest. Yet there has never been discovered one single Greek manuscript containing this verse where mention is made of a priest. This is a case of Nicolaitan

59

60 interference (see Rev. 2: 6 and make sure you understand what Nicolaitanism is all about). hierourgounta (ministering) occurs here only in the New Testament. The emphasis is on the work and not the person. Parkhurst, in his Greek dictionary describes it as “being employed in the sacred business of preaching or administering the gospel”. He makes no mention of priests. Beware those who do. The AV translators were familiar enough with the word priest and could have used it if it had been required, as they did from Matthew to Acts in regard to the Jewish system, and in Hebrews concerning Christ and the contrast with the Jew’s high priest. In Revelation all believers are described as priests. Romans 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. The enemies of the Received Text and the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible are convinced that here is a clear error. ‘the western authorities have it here instead of in xvi.20b’ said F F Bruce in his commentary on Romans. How careless of them! They are to be regarded as so stupid that they slipped the sentence in the second time only four verses down the page. They didn’t notice that they had already written the verse. Such is the contempt held by the mighty scholars for what happens to be the word of God. W E Vine in his commentary on Romans is rather more crafty. He misses the verse out entirely and without comment. F E Stallan in his commentary on Romans (What the Bible Teaches), wants his readers to know that the RV, with most critical editors, rejects this verse as an interpolation. It is substantially the same as v.20 with the exception that the word “all” is included. If the verse is authentic it adds another note of encouragement for the Romans from Paul. One must not think that Stallan was more willing to accept the AV reading than was Bruce and Vine. His words ‘if the verse is authentic’ means he did not trust his AV Bible, neither the RV, nor any other version. His words cast doubt on the word of God as do all the volumes in the What the Bible Teaches series. The support for the inclusion of v.24 is overwhelming. It is found in Tyndale’s Bible, also in the Great Bible, the Geneva, and the Bishops Bible. Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir kept it. It is found in many MSS and in the vast majority of cursive MSS. It is in the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Harclean and is quoted by six of the so-called Early Fathers. We accept and believe what we find in our Bible. This we do as believers always have done down through the ages. From the evidence supplied, as with this verse under consideration, we are reassured that our acceptance is not due to prejudice or vain tradition, but because of faith in our God. It is faith in the God Who promised to preserve His word and so clearly has done. Verse 20 was an encouragement first to the saints at Rome, following a warning as to the division makers. Verse 24 concludes the whole epistle which is then followed by a doxology. A word about them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned. Paul says mark them and avoid them. I learned as a young man in assembly fellowship that I could trust my Bible. Those who want to take my Bible from me and supplant it with another which is not a Bible, I mark and avoid. There are those among us who openly and publicly scorn the AV Bible. They are division makers. Mark them and avoid them. 1 Cor.1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. Critics tell us it was never a cross but a stake. If no cross then Christ was not crucified. The Hebrews had no word for cross. That barbaric form of punishment being foreign to them. Thus Peter (Acts.5:30. 10:39) and Paul (Acts.13:29, Gal.3:13) preaching to the Jews and speaking of Christ on the tree had in mind the words of Deut.21:23, He that is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God. The word for tree in the NT may also be translated stave, but it is never translated cross. The word used for cross is never translated any other way, i.e. never spoken of as a stave. The

60

61 symbol of the cross was well enough known even in pre-Christian times. 1 Cor.1:21 It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. "Not so", say the critics, "there is nothing wrong with our preaching! It is the message itself that must be defective." So they mutilate these verses to read, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.... God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe". By this they ignore the context and the use of the Greek word logos. For ye are enriched by him in all utterance (logos) ....(v.5). The Corinthians were gifted in their preaching. But, Paul said that his preaching was not with wisdom of words (logos), i.e. not with clever speech lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He would use the foolishness of preaching, simply declaring what God had done on sending His Son to die on the cross for our sins, rather than to rely on eloquence, rhetoric, intellectual debate etc. which might impress many and induce false professions of salvation. The modernists state that it is the cross of Christ which is foolishness in v.21, because that is what is being preached. That is no less than a foul and wicked blasphemy. So why do they have "your speaking" for logos in v.5? they cannot be consistent even in the same chapter. 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. Vine in his commentary on this verse, pretending to quote the AV reading, omits the word “even”. He then tells us the word rendered “carnal” is sarkinos (in the best texts).Here and in Rom.7:14 it signifies partaking of the nature of the flesh. In verse 3 the Apostle uses the word sarkikos, a severer term, signifying sensual, i.e. under the control of the fleshly nature instead of being governed by the Spirit of God. We have no doubt that it is the sarkinos man who is confused as to the best texts. The word sarkinos occurs once only in Scripture; neither here, nor in Rom.7:14 where the word is again sarkikos, but at 2 Cor.3:3 (but in fleshy tables of the heart) where the contrast is with tables of stone. The suffix –inos, the Greek scholars tell me, tells what a thing is made of. So, sarkinos = made of flesh. It doesn’t speak of its nature, but of its constitution. The conclusion is, if sarkinos is the correct word here, then these Corinthians know nothing of conversion. No radical change has taken place in their lives. This is all they are; just men of the flesh without the indwelling Spirit of God. Yet Paul calls them brethren, babes in Christ. Westcott and Hort, the great 19th century mutilators of Scripture, knew nothing of conversion (read their biographies!), hence the alteration of scripture here. The best texts, according to Vine, are the most mutilated, perverted, and popish. They are essentially the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The word sarkikos is the reading found in the Received Text. It is, according to the Hodges/Farstad Majority text, to be found in at least 85%-90% of manuscripts and is opposed only by the Alexandrian consensus of manuscripts. Greisbach’s 1805 Greek New Testament retains the word. Greisbach is sometimes referred to as the father of Textual Criticism and would have changed the word had he known then of an alternative reading. This raises other issues. Were parts of the word of God really lost until discovered later in the 19th century in a monastery waste bin? The fact is, these Corinthians were more than mere men of flesh, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They were saved men. But they were still sarkikos. An unconverted man cannot be described thus and this is why the scholars don’t like the word here. These believers had had the power “connected” but they weren’t “switched on”. They were using their spiritual gifts for carnal motives. There was still envying, and strife, and divisions among them. Paul was therefore unable to speak to them as spiritual men, mature in the faith. He would have to address them as he would to babes in Christ. Paul didn’t say they WERE babes, rather he would have to speak to them as though they were.

61

62

1 Corinthians 4: 16 (See also 1Thess. 2: 14) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers ( mimetes) of me. “Therefore I urge you, imitate me.” NKJV and all other modern versions. Monkeys and parrots can imitate. Only converted men and women can follow the apostle. So we note that mimetes is consistently translated “followers” in the AV Bible. (7 times). Plato used mimetes to describe an imposter, a mere actor. The Spirit of God uses the word in an altogether different sense, hence the English translation follower. 1 Cor. 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: But God hath called us to peace. W S Stevely, in an ambiguous letter to the editor of Believers’ Magazine, June 2001, by quoting Darby, appears to be promoting the view that 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows for divorce. Verse 39 puts the lie to this. The marriage bond remains until the death of one of the spouses. Bear in mind that divorce is not implied in verse 27. Being loosed from a wife happens when the wife dies. The meaning of this verse is quite plain, that if an unsaved spouse is determined to leave his or her partner (presumably because the one has got saved since the marriage), the believer has no moral or legal or spiritual obligation to prevent the departure. Divorce is not mentioned. The NIV weakens the statement by making nine changes in this one verse. It reads, “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” The change from under bondage to bound changes the meaning and allows the verse to suggest a breaking of the marriage bond, for the word bound occurs at verses 27 and 39 in this chapter where a legal married bond is clearly indicated. Darby in his New Translation also made the change to bound. But in his Synopsis he wrote, If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man or woman) was free — "let him depart." The brother was no longer bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife. Thus he adds his interpretation to the passage. Therefore we are led to understand that if an unbelieving spouse should leave the believing partner, he or she may regard himself, or herself, as unmarried and the inference is that such a one could then remarry. J J Lias, in his commentary on this verse points out what was the Romish view. The Roman Catholic divines, e.g. à Lapide and Ambrosiaster, as well as the Canon law, held that in the case of the heathen partner refusing to live with the other when he or she embraced Christianity, the Christian was justified in contracting a fresh marriage. —Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; First Epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned. A commentator informs us, It is often asserted that the Bible never directly sanctions remarriage. This is not true. 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 (NKJV correctly) says: ‘Are you loosed (i.e. divorced) from a wife? Do not seek a wife’. But it then adds: ‘but even if you do marry, you have not sinned’. Evangelical Times; July 2000, p14. My copy of the NKJV doesn’t mention being divorced. By placing (i.e. divorced) within the apostrophes one concludes that it is to be regarded as part of the text. The Evangelical Times

62

63 writer’s desire to make adultery scriptural compels him to add his own interpretations to the text of Scripture. And why is the NKJV correct here, the inference being that other versions are incorrect? In this instance it reads quite similar to the AV. So why the need to change? Christ stated whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, commiteth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18. Some will say that this must be qualified by Mat.19:9, where fornication is given as the ground for divorce. Matthew must be understood in its Jewish setting, where we note the Lord’s words were in answer to Phariseeical tempting in front of the multitude. In Luke the words were addressed to the disciples, and they were not told of any let-out clauses for divorce. The Lord said to them quite plainly that the remarried person is a practicing adulterer. Full stop! We are quite sure this is how the disciples must have understood it Legge’s article in the Evangelical Times is unsound. Not only can he not read the word of Scripture without adding to it, he completely misunderstands the teaching of the passage. Divorce and remarriage are not discussed in 1 Cor. 7, neither anywhere else in the NT for that matter. The point being made is this. What is good for the present distress, i.e., the circumstances, persecutions and distresses of Christian life in the NT era? What state is it best for a man to be in? (v26). Paul had just been saying that one should stay put in one’s present calling, and now he applies this to marriage. So our two verses (27 & 28) deal with two men; One has a wife, the other has not a wife. To the first he says do not seek to be free of her (divorce is NOT mentioned) because she isn’t saved and is threatening to leave him (v15). To the other man who is not married (‘loosed’ does not imply that he once had a wife. It means he is free from marriage bonds), he says, under the present stresses, stay as you are, and thereby avoid all the problems that marriage will incur. Nevertheless, Paul says to this unmarried man, if you do marry you are not committing any sin. 1 Cor.9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. We are told that this is a misleading translation because the basic meaning of a castaway refers to a shipwrecked mariner. That meaning was unknown before 1799 AD and our English Bible was produced in 1611 AD. A person "castaway" is totally rejected. ("Rubbished" in the modern jargon). So why describe the Holy Bible as misleading? "We didn't" insist the critics, "it is this particular version of the Bible that is misleading in so many places, and a version of the Bible which is not the true original". Then where is the real Bible? Now they tell me that it doesn't exist. It never did exist because the writings that were collected into one volume at the beginning of the second century AD were only copies of the original scattered manuscripts. The human race has never been in possession of a pure Holy Bible according to our modern critics. But if a Bible did exist at the beginning of church history then we may be sure that God would have had no difficulty in preserving it for 2000 years. We may be sure, however, that the words quoted at the head of this paragraph are words of Scripture, and are quoted from the Holy Bible. If anything is lost in translation, of the word of God, it would mean that almost the whole human race was cast away at Babel. God, Who according to the critics, spoke only Hebrew and Greek, put the human race out of touch there at Babel. He can therefore no longer communicate effectively with anyone who cannot speak His language. Yes, some of our brethren really do believe that. They have told me it is necessary to understand Greek an Hebrew to have a proper grasp of Scripture (which doesn't exist according to them). Well, let them know that MY God speaks English and has given me a Holy Bible which is no less inspired and no less accurate than anything ever written in Hebrew and Greek. This Bible is known as the Authorized Bible. Vine in his dictionary explains castaway as meaning "rejected, i.e. disapproved, and so rejected from present testimony, with loss of future reward". In other words, if a person has nothing about him that speaks of Christ, and gives no evidence of Christian discipline in his life but just "claims" that he is in the race, he will get to heaven but have no reward when he gets there. Vine thinks that the passage refers to the Judgment Seat of Christ. But note that the castaway becomes such

63

64 at the end of the race, not during it. It is then that he is rejected, when the race is over. No Scripture teaches the rejection of a person at the Judgment Seat (don't confuse this with the Great White Throne judgment). But this verse does teach the rejection of a person. So what Paul is saying is that he practiced what he preached. It is possible for some to preach the Christian life to others but not to live it themselves which would be hypocritical. Such persons would be without eternal life. We fear that there are now those among us who preach the gospel or a form of it while they themselves are not saved. Be warned says the Apostle, there was a mixed multitude in the wilderness and all but two of them perished there in the wilderness. God was not pleased with them. So let us be Bible believers, and accept the solemn admonitions of Scripture. The person who does not accept the rigours of the Christian life, though making a profession of it, is a reprobate. All true believers are winners. All who love His appearing receive the crown of righteousness. There is no question of their being saved throughout the race only to be lost at the end of it. The believer heeds the admonitions of Scripture while the reprobate ignores them. 1 Corinthians 10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant.... Preachers like their audience to believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few cross references in Darby or Vine etc. We have an example in 1 Cor. 10: 1. The preacher reads the verse then says “If you have a good translation it will read ‘for’, and not ‘moreover’.” Therefore a good translation will be Darby’s or the RV or the ASV not forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will be the AV of course. The Greek word translated ‘moreover’ in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the Greek Received Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then, when, for, etc. (Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be translated ‘for’. See Acts 17: 21. you may find another example if you search hard enough.). Our preacher never learned Greek. I haven’t either (more is the pity) What the preacher really wants you to know is if the Brethren didn’t produce it, it isn’t any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram, Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has written elsewhere, most preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil. Reading ‘for’ does not improve the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know that Paul’s comment in v.1 builds on what has gone immediately before. 1 Cor.11:24 Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. The word 'broken' is omitted in the RV, but has the support of the majority of the Byzantine mss. and lectionary copies. It is also in the Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writings of some of the early fathers. The Codex Siniaticus is one of the few mss, omitting the word, but even this has been altered by a corrector to include it. In this there is " no contradiction and no departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of the Passover Lamb were not to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken. The body of the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed, and when it was skinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken, His body was broken when the crown of thorns broke the flesh of His brow, when the scourging broke the flesh of His body, when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and His feet, and when the spear broke the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover symbolism in that His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 - He was wounded for our transgressions." Quoted from TBS. Leaflet No.65. 1.Corinthians 13

64

65 charity The battle still rages as to whether agape is better translated 'love' rather than 'charity' as in the AV Bible at 1 Cor.13. It is a futile battle. The translators knew what they were doing in 1611 and the matter was settled by Dean Burgon more than 100 years ago when Westcott and Hort first meddled with the word. I quote from Revision Revised by Dean Burgon :"agape -a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on 'that most excellent gift, the gift of Charity', and the general substitution of 'Love' in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that 'Love' is not an equivalent term? Can they be required to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of 'CHARITY', and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word 'Charity' connotes many ideas to which the word 'Love' is an entire stranger? that 'Love', on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in 'Charity' find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,¾and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word 'charity' has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,-ancient, mediaeval, modern,-as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of 'household words'? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the 13th chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the nine-fold recurrence of the name of 'that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY'?" 1 Cor.14:2 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. (See also vv. 4,13,14,19,27) Some like to tell that the word unknown, being in italics, should not be there. We should read “he who speaks in a tongue…”. (NKJV etc). “Tongue” is synonymous with “language” i.e., human language. Therefore those who do not speak in a tongue are babies, madmen, or Pentecostalists ¾they are not using human language. The NKJV reading is seen to be meaningless. The inclusion of unknown in the AV Bible gives sense to the translation and relates to he who speaks in a language not known to any present. The word is not needed in vv. 5, 18, where we have the plural tongues indicating a multiplicity of languages. 1 Cor. 15: 55 O grave, where is thy victory A writer (H Barnes; Believers Magazine; Oct.2002, p.302) tells us, The word “grave” in the New Testament is usually a translation of the Greek word hades, the unseen world, the present residence of departed souls. It is thus “being with Christ” for believers (Phil 1.23), or else being in torment in hell for unbelievers (Lk. 16.28). This is regurgitated Scofieldism, namely the old fable of hades having two compartments, one for believers and the other for unbelievers. “Grave” is the translation of hades only ONCE in the whole of Scripture. It is found in 1 Cor. 15: 55, O grave, where is thy victory? There is no victory for the grave where the believer is concerned. But for the unbeliever the grave declares that his soul is in hell. The usual word translated “grave” in the New Testament is mnemeion as found in John 11: 17 …he had lain in the grave four days already. Mneema is translated “graves” in Rev. 11:9. No believer goes down into hades. Ps. 9: 17 tells us The wicked shall be turned into hell ( sheol).

65

66 That is, those who go down into hell are without exception, wicked. Amos spoke of Sheol as being beneath, and heaven as being above (9: 3). David spoke of the ungodly as like sheep, they are laid in the grave (sheol), but that was not his expectation. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me. (Ps. 49: 14). The power of the grave (hell) is to hold its prey in torments for eternity. David expected God to receive his soul at death, and not sheol. Sheol in the Old Testament equates precisely with hades in the New Testament. This will assure us that Christ did not descend into hell. Attempts to tone down the awfulness of hell must be viewed with the deepest suspicion. The suggestion that believers go down into hades (which is hell) is a heretical distortion of the truth. 2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God. This verse has been handled deceitfully by many, and that is what this corrupting means. The Word may be corrupted orally or it may be corrupted in its written form. Modern versionists, who realize that this verse condemns them, change it to read "unlike so many we do not peddle the word of God." Do they not indeed? Modern versions are all about Big Money for the publishers. What Paul was referring to was that some were adulterating the word of God for base gain. There were words and passages which these ungodly men found unpalatable. Things which were a savour of death unto death. Unpopular doctrines which if taught would reduce their popularity and standing. Things concerning the deity of Christ and His perfect humanity. Things concerning judgment to come which mere professors of salvation and not possessors of salvation would not like to hear. The sentence has been accurately and faithfully translated in our Authorized Bible. 2 Corinthians 3:12,13 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses.... Some, who dislike great plainness of speech, think that the "hope" just gave Paul courage in his preaching. Seeing that he is contrasting his preaching to that of Moses, this interpretation implies that Moses was cowardly. The contrast, however, is between what is open and what was hidden. The moral fibre of the Lord's servants has nothing to do with the subject. The AV translators were well aware that the word "boldness" might have been used instead of "plainness". This is why they placed that alternative in the margin. But modern students fail to grasp that boldness has several meanings such as courage, well-marked, clear, etc. If we put it into bold print it becomes plain enough. We are not using courageous print! So let the context decide it. Preachers who like to change the words of Scripture confuse the teaching of Scripture by their actions. Let us all continue to use great plainness of speech in our preaching. 2 Corinthians 4: 4 ....the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, & 1 Timothy 1: 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, These two verses read in the NIV as “The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ”, and (keeping close to the AV) “the glorious gospel of the blessed God”. Darby, much earlier, altered the AV readings to “the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ”, and “according to the glad tidings of the glory of the blessed God”. Other modern versions have similar readings. Thus we find the NKJB changes the reading to “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ”, but like the NIV, does not change the reading in 1 Timothy. Similar constructions are found in Romans 8: 21, the glorious liberty of the children of God. Darby isn’t happy with liberty being glorious. so he changed the reading to “the liberty of the glory of the children of God”. He believed the glory belonged to the children of God. So he wrote in his

66

67 footnote to this verse, ‘Glorious liberty’ as in the A.V. does not give the sense. The creature has no part in the liberty of grace; but it will have in that which glory gives. This seems to be just one more of Darby’s gobble-de-gook statements. He has glory having liberty instead of liberty being glorious. Tyndale had no doubt that the sense and construction of the sentence demanded “glorious gospel” and he was well aware that Wycliffe (Translating from Jerome’s Vulgate ) “the gospel of the glory”. The AV men, translating in committee, agreed with Tyndale and this is the Bible our God has given to the English speaking believers. Every time a reading is questioned, the faithfulness of God is impugned. 2 Corinthians 4: 16 ....but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. “Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day.” (RSV, ESV) Changing “man” to “nature” changes the meaning of the verse. The Greek word commonly translated “nature” is phusis but it is not used in this verse. We are partakers of the divine nature (phusis) 2 Peter 1: 14). We see therefore that nature is not the subject here. Conservative commentators are generally agreed that the outward man refers to our mortal bodies but the inward is the immaterial being which responds to the continual refreshing work of the Holy Spirit. Reference to an outer nature seems to be linking it to the old man which is crucified with Christ. and cannot merely “waste away”. Galatians 3:24 The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Naughty pupils do not like schoolmasters so out goes the word from modern versions. The Greek word for schoolmaster is paidagogos which gives us the English word pedagogue, which in our modern Oxford dictionary is defined as "schoolmaster"! We are told that the pedagogos was a slave responsible for the moral and physical well-being of the child and would lead him to and from school. J Hunter thought that "a strict governess" to be a suitable translation, thus introducing a sex change. (What the Bible Teaches; 1983 Vol?, p.54). Commentators deny the sense of teaching in the word, preferring to rely on "classical" usages of the word, or on the presumed practices of the Roman slave trade. Why not allow the Holy Spirit to interpret according to the context? Vine tells us that where paidagogos is translated "instructors", 1 Cor.4:15, it should read "pastors". But surely even pastors teach when caring for the flock. Believing Bible study must begin with what we find written on the sacred page. We are not free to form our own opinions and then to look for the version that best expresses them. If we do not understand a word, phrase, or passage, then we wait on the Lord until the Holy Spirit illumines the page. We do not adjust the text. that is what modern versionism is all about. The law was a schoolmaster, teaching the Israelite that he had a special relationship with God, separate from the ungodly nations surrounding him; that approach to God was on ceremonial grounds and the law taught him (if he would only listen) that he was a sinner. It was "till the seed should come", so bringing him to Christ.

Galatians 4: 4

67

68 God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. A few modern versions have “born of a woman, born under law”. Although there are 8000 changes made in the Greek manuscripts, this verse stands firm in all. Every known Greek manuscript has ginomai (=made). The change to “born” must be seen for what it is ─a direct attack on the virgin birth. Whoever heard of a mortal man who was not born of a woman? This verse tells us of One who was made without the assistance of man. The AV translators were well aware of the difference between made and born. We have only to go down to v.29 and we read he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. The Greek word for born is here gennao which emphasises the vital distinction made in v.4. Where natural birth is concerned we read of John the Baptist in Mtt.11:11, Among them that are born (gennetos) of women there has not risen a greater. We note that not even Darby had “born” in Gal.4: 4. He wrote “come of a woman”. We also note that the Douay Version retains “made”. If ginomai may be translated born then a blasphemy would be introduced at Galatians 3: 13, Christ.... being made (ginomai) a curse. (Born a curse) This verse alone is sufficient to demolish the “foetal implant” theory, popularised by Henry Morris and others. Morris has written:Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body , however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally..... Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. .... Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Morris believes that the physical body of Christ was fashioned in heaven and miraculously transplanted in the womb of Mary. Therefore the real humanity of Christ is removed. We end with a quote from Gill’s commentary: "made", not created as Adam was; nor begotten by man, as men in common are; nor is he said to be born, though he truly was, but "made"; which word the Holy Ghost chooses, to express the mighty power of God, in his mysterious incarnation, wonderful conception, and birth. ─Gill Galatians 4:10,11 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain A bible critic tells us, 'To contend for the AV no error' position seems to some to be untenable, unnecessary, and only plays into the hands of those who accuse us of AV-olatry, or naivity in these matters'. It is apparently naïve to believe that when I read Easter in Acts 12:4. it actually means Easter. (see my notes above on Acts 12:4). This is the only example that the writer can produce¾a verse that we dealt with in Wavmarks No.8. The AV Translators must have been naïve as well, even though they marked in the margin, 'Gk. as Mk.l4.l.&c.' i.e. the Greek word means Passover. But v.3 shows that the Passover had gone and the days of unleavened bread were in progress. Plainly the Greek word pascha was being used for Easter (there being no other suitable word available) as well as for Passover. Hislop in his book The Two Baby!ons points out that in the third or fourth centuries AD the festival now called Easter was then known as Pasch. We suspect that the reason for the modern objection to the word Easter in Acts is because of

68

69 Herod's association with it and our modernist friends do not like the idea that their Easter is essentially the Babylonish festival of Astarte christianised. The Jews celebrated the Passover. Herod celebrated Easter. Those who celebrate so called Christian festivals need to take note of Paul's words to the Galatians. Words that should have kept us away from any millennial celebrations as well! It is not a matter of naïvety to believe the AV Bible is without error. Here is the age old inference that if one dares to disagree with those who like to appear learned then that proves one to be a simpleton. That is the line taken by most Bible critics. What else can the 'AV no error' critic come up with? He joins all the Bible critics in his attitude, only he is more dangerous for he pretends to be a friend of the AV whilst he attacks it. Let us know what these alleged errors are and we shall patiently seek to show that the error is in the mind of the beholder only. But those who hold to error are not usually willing to be taught, so we shall seek rather to. encourage the believer. It seems that the reason why we are expected to deny the perfection of the AV is that men could not produce a perfect Bible. They are but human. We wonder why it is that God gave His inspired word to frail men in the first place if He were not competent to preserve it in later translations. We are told that only the original Hebrew and Greek have claim to inspiration and preservation. So the editor of Bible League Quarterly, who insists in error in the AV does not believe the AV to be the inspired word of God at all. Babel becomes a serious error on God's part for at Babel God confounded the language of all the earth and then found Himself unable to communicate fully with any except Hebrew/Greek speaking people. This is actually what our crafty scholars want us to believe. If the modem ploughboy wants to understand the word of God he must go back to the scholar-priest, who can then explain away the precious truths of God by means of modem parodies of Scripture that bear little relation to the original Hebrew and Greek. The linguist will tell us that no language can be translated into another without some loss. Such people reckon without God. With God all things are possible. I am satisfied that there was divine overruling when the AV was produced, so it does not even matter if the translators themselves did not expect to produce a perfect work. We look back and we see that they did. We are also told that the AV is imperfect because we do not have the original manuscripts. This is even more an unreasonable view . Because the master copy is lost it does not follow at all that extant copies of that master have to be imperfect. We take the same believing approach, that our God is faithful and nothing of His word has been lost. Not even when the master copy was made 2000 sears ago and multitudes of copies stand in between. God did not hand over the transmission of Scripture to apostate and ignorant monks in their dismal cells. Godly believers made their own copies carefully and reverently, knowing that they were handling the word of God. A few minutes after I was saved I bought my first Bible. It was an AV Bible, there not being much else available in 1955, and no other choices on that bookstall. I did not consider that it might be less than 100% the word of God in the English language. It never entered my head that there might be blemishes in it. I believed it to be supernaturally provided in its content because I knew the original had come that way. When men began to tell me there were faults in my Bible I was upset but resolved that if I found any I would just have to accept them. I began that study many years ago and have found no error yet. The view that the AV is perfect is not for me solely a matter of faith but borne out of years of research. There is a reasonable explanation for every alleged blemish. The view has not led me into some extremist position as some would like to assert. I do not believe that the AV translators were in any way themselves inspired. I do believe that their work was ordained of and overseen by God. I do believe therefore that the AV and not the original Hebrew/Greek Scriptures are the final appeal, if for no other reason than that these latter Scriptures have long since been lost. Even if they still existed in pristine condition, they would not be my final court of appeal for another very simple reason - 1 understand neither Hebrew nor Greek. They might be useful to the scholar in verifying that his English Bible is indeed the word of God but we must not lose sight of this fact that our English Bible is no less the inspired word of God than that which first came by means of prophet's or apostle's pen. I don't need a cleric to tell me what is Bible and what is blemish. Mine is no novel view.

69

70 It is thought by some that ascribing perfection to a translation is a recent view. We can show that it isn't. John Urquhart wrote in 1895, 'The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, in a united protest addressed to Bishop Colenso, in 1863, said “All our hopes for eternity, the very foundation of our faith, our nearest and dearest consolations, are taken from us, if one line of that Sacred Book be declared unfaithful or untrustworthy.” “If any further confirmation is needed that this has long been the customary view of the Bible, it will be found in the confessions of those who attack the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. They speak of it as 'the ordinary view.' When they attack it, and endeavour to show that it is overthrown by the alleged existence of errors in the Bible, they are perfectly aware that they are saying or writing what will offend the vast majority of Christian people….the Bible is, from beginning to end, the faultless Word of the faultless God.” -The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures. The Bishops made their statement before the RV was thrust upon them. How fickle men are, but the common view of the time is established, it might be argued that Urquhart was writing against the Higher Critic and was not referring to the textual changes made by the Lower Critics that were ushered in with the RV. But error is error and if the Bible needs textual amendments it could hardly be spoken of as faultless. About 100 years ago(?) Gaussen wrote, 'The question has been put, is the Bible inspired, even in its language? We have affirmed that it is. In other words,….the question has been put, Have the men of God given us the Scriptures exempt from error, great or small, positive or negative? We have affirmed that they have.'- The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Gaussen was not referrng to the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, but to the English Bible. The men of God were the translators. Gaussen made that plain earlier in his book when he wrote, 'if [the writer of the autograph] has made a mistake, his blunder is for ever irreparable; it must last longer than heaven and earth, it has blemished the eternal book remedilessly. and nobody on earth can correct it;-it is quite otherwise with translators. These on the contrary have always the divine text at hand, so as to be corrected and re-corrected, according to the eternal type, until they have become the exact counterpart of it. The inspired word leaves us not; we need not to go in search of it to the third heaven; it is still upon the earth, just as God first dictated it to us.' Where is this exact counterpart if it is not the AV? Certainly not in any modem version. The view that the Scriptures are imperfect in all but their original form is not a novel view. This doctrine was first set forth in the Garden of Eden when Satan said to Eve, 'hath God said?' implying that Eve hadn't got the message quite right. The insinuations that some alleged supporters of the AV are making against the AV are detrimental to the faith. If it is imperfect, as they say, then those imperfections cannot be the inspired words of God. The ordinary believer, not being a scholar, cannot tell what is an imperfection and what is not, so he must be suspicious of the whole. We note the words of Jack Moorman, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and say this is the preserved word of God, then it is sin, if we do not approach the study of how we got our Bible from the standpoint of faith, then it is sin, if I cannot believe what God says about the preservation of His Word, then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either - all is sin.' -Forever Settled: a survey of the Documents and History of the Bible. Galatians 5: 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern versions, from the RV onwards. Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. (Jer. 5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom. The NIV reads, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious” which is very vague for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

70

71 moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three of the “Fathers”. Ephesians 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened. Modern versions change this to " the eyes of your heart." We are not surprised to learn that they used the depraved Greek Texts, Aleph, A, B, D as the authority for this change. The AV reading is taken from the Received Text which supplies the Greek word dianoia (dianoya) =mind or understanding. J. Moorman (quoting from Vincent's Word Studies) points out that, ' "the eyes of the heart" occurs nowhere else in Scripture, neither does it set well with Scriptural truth, and probably comes from the heathen philosophers. Plato spoke about the "eyes of the soul"; and Ovid, speaking of Pythagoras said: "with his mind he approached the gods, though far removed from heaven, and what nature denied to human sight, he drew forth with the eyes of his heart."' -When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text. What a pity that our "scholars" seem to prefer the works of heathen philosophers to what the Spirit of God has supplied. A. Leckie, once esteemed among us, wrote " the weight of authority favours 'heart' and not 'understanding'. What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? In this he was totally mistaken. The weight of authority lies with the Received Text. Leckie followed Darby's translation. Today hardly any Bible Teacher among the "brethren" follows the AV 100%. Ephesians 3: 14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father”. RV. Modern versions almost without exception (ASV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc., etc. ) follow the Westcott and Hort Greek text and omit of our Lord Jesus Christ. JND places them in italics, regarding them as dubious. The NKJV keeps them. The majority of manuscripts support the AV reading and a few Alexandrian omit. The deliberate omission is an attack Ephesians 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, It is thought by some that this is a mistranslation and the verse ought to be translated “ye have put off….” The reason for this misunderstanding is because we read in Col.3:9, seeing that ye have put off the old man…. This appears to be a contradiction in the minds of those who have not considered the passages carefully. They argue, how can there be an injunction to "put off the old man" if the saints have already done so? Beloved, just read the context of Eph 4. Paul is writing concerning what the Ephesian saints have already learned. If they have learned of Christ, and heard him, and have been taught by Him, then they learned this, and they learned it from the beginning, that the old man is to be put off. It is to be done at conversion. It is what all true believers do when they come to know Christ. So the Ephesians had been taught "Put off the old man!" That is what Paul is reminding them of in this passage. There is no place for "old man" characteristics in the life of the believer. He has discarded the old man and has put on the new man. Paul reminds the Colossian saints that they (all of them) have put off the old man. He is not telling them that if they haven't done it then it is about time they did do it. The new man cannot be put on until the old man is discarded. The person not adorned in the new man is unconverted and hellbound.

71

72

So where have our translators gone astray? They understood the Scriptures even if our modern preachers don't. The AV translation is grammatically as well as doctrinally correct. JND's translation “ye have heard him…and been instructed…. (namely) your having put off….the old man” changes the meaning of the passage. It would suggest that they had been taught that they had put off the old man. They didn't know they had put off the old man until they had been instructed that they had. This kind of Scripture mutilation allows for the catechisms of Christendom that tell people that they are what they are not. I have a certificate that tells me that as an infant I became a child of God because I had some water sprinkled on my face. I didn't know anything about it until my mother told me many years later. Darby himself rejected the Scripture's teaching on the baptism of believer Phil.2:5,6,7 Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men. This statement has been a veritable battleground from the beginning. Mistranslation and misapplication has led to the KENOSIS THEORY, in which the Lord is alleged to have emptied Himself of His glory in His incarnation and subjected Himself to human limitations, ceasing to be omniscient. The subject has been fully dealt with by competent believing scholars so my comments here need be only brief. First, we note how the passage has been falsified in the NIV.- “Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” Nature and form are not the same. I might have the same nature as my mother but my form is not identical. The AV Bible speaks of an existing equality in the Godhead which was not surrendered in incarnation. The form of God is manifested in the form of a servant. The Scripture does not suggest that Christ relinquished the form of God. The NIV does suggest that Christ released His grasp on His divine attributes (nature) and became NOTHING, displaying the attributes of a servant, without becoming in very being (form) a servant. Following modern versions, we see, will lead us into very serious¾and blasphemous¾error. Many years ago, at the end of the breaking of bread meeting, a man rose to give ministry in which he told us that the Lord, while on earth was in essence less than God. We could not continue in fellowship with such a man of course. And now we read in The Bible League Quarterly, Jan-Mar. 2000, p.147, "as to His essential nature, He always was and never has ceased to be equal with God. But where would any of us be now, if He had demanded to remain on equality with God in position and role, instead of humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant and obediently submitting to God as His Head?" - Prof. David Gooding. Gooding tells us that the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3 expresses inequality. He tells us that in not demanding to remain on equality something had to be surrendered. That in subjecting Himself to the authority of the Father in His incarnation, He took up an inferior role and position. Christ was on earth what He was in heaven. There was no loss of deity in any respect in His coming to earth There was gain, in that He came to possess a human nature¾one that could not be tarnished by sin- and was seen in the likeness of sinful flesh. Being of no reputation did not produce inequality in the Godhead. The continuing equality of the Son of God is expressed in the words of Col.1:19, For it pleased

72

73 the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. Also we note Col.2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Whatever the quality or attribute pertaining to the Godhead, it was found in Christ. Philippians 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. The words “...rule, let us mind the same thing” (kanoni, to auto fronein), were wrested from the Greek N T by Greisbach in 1805. This error was very quickly exposed by Fred. Nolan in 1815. He wrote, “the following [list of omitted texts] may be restored to the sacred text on the testimony of the annexed authorities: ...Phil.3:16 Byz. Syr. 1 .It. 3. Arab. These authorities are the earliest versions (=translations) of the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin, and Arabic. Believers dispersed throughout Europe, Byzantium, North Africa had a Bible with an identical text though in their own language. They kept to the same rule (canon); they were all of the same mind. What they had attained to, they kept. If ignorant men ask where the Bible was to be found prior to 1611, they have the answer here. It was in the hands of believers throughout the inhabited world. It was a Bible with which our English AV Bible is in full agreement, ours being based on the Received Text, referred to by some as the Byzantine text. Whereto we have already attained is the Apostles’ Doctrine. We do not need the creeds of men while we have a reliable Bible. Men such as Origen, Augustine, Greisbach, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, were never happy with the Apostles’ Doctrine. They did not wish to walk by the same rule. So they simply cut it out. Thus we read in the NIV etc. “Only let us live up to what we have already attained”. No common rule and no united mind. Unwary readers of modern versions will be unaware that they are reading seriously mutilated perversions of Scripture. The critics do not usually indicate what they have done. Walking by the same rule must mean having a common definitive Bible. The proliferation of versions is a denial of this verse of Scripture and demands its removal. We have a God given standard Bible in the English tongue, in full agreement with the Bible of the first generation of Christians, which is known as the Authorized Version. It has a proven pedigree. Phillipians 3: 20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. “Conversation” is translated from politeuma, which word occurs only here in the N. T. In most modern versions it is translated “citizenship” but this is not the true meaning of the word. In Phil. 1: 27 politeuomai is used, again translated “conversation” in the AV Bible. It speaks of the behaviour of one living in accord with the gospel of Christ. Our conduct, our behaviour, is not therefore in the manner of earth-dwellers, but our behaviour is what belongs in heaven. As it is in heaven, so let it be on earth. The word citizenship is insufficient here. There are many who hold full UK citizenship, but their behaviour is unacceptable to UK society. Theirs is not conversation; theirs is malversation which means misbehaviour or corruption. Phil. 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, The word vile has lost its primary meaning of being of small account, and now refers to things disgusting. It is language itself that has become debased. We do not rely on modern dictionaries for definitions of Bible words, nor are we compelled to turn to Greek lexicons. Scripture is its own interpreter. We learn what is meant by vile when we read Luke 1: 48, For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. We read of the discreet definition of the humanity of Christ in Acts 8: 33, In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. So we do not need to change the word in our Bible. We understand it, even though the word humiliation has come to mean something shameful; injurious to self respect. In the seventeenth century humiliation meant the abasement

73

74 of pride. The only other place this word is used is in James 1: 10. But the rich in that he is made low. Of course, we do not despise Greek lexicons. The Greek word used in the above four verses is tapeinosis. Colossians 1: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. The NIV reads “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”. Blood is omitted on the grounds that Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text omits it. Wycliffe, in 1380 AD omitted the blood. He wrote “in whom we han a3enbiyng and remyssioun of synnes”. He had only Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to work on, so he didn’t know it should be included. Yet the Latin Vulgate of Sixti V. and Clementis VIII has “in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum”.(In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins). Tyndale has blood in Col.1: 14. There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. Colossians 2: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead ( theotes) bodily. “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” NRSV, ESV Godhead is mentioned three times in the AV Bible, theios in Acts 17: 29, theiotes (derived from theios) in Romans 1:20 and theotes in Colossians 2: 9. It is missing from modern versions. The Godhead is a term applying solely the Triune God and all that consists in the Godhead is found equally and completely in the person of Christ Jesus the Lord The word deity does not appear in the AV Bible. It is a loose term for “divine being” or “supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force” —Webster’s Revised unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. The undiscerning might think that little meaning is lost in the two modern versions quoted but they are false. The god of Modern Versionism is not the True and Living God of the Holy Bible.

Colossians 3: 6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience. “Because of these, the wrath of God is coming” NIV “On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient.” NRSV “The children of disobedience” is a specific class of people. They are elsewhere described as ungodly (for whom Christ died). They are the unconverted; without eternal life; perishing. The NIV assumes no distinction between the saved and the lost. 1 Thessalonians 2: 14 (See also 1 Cor. 4: 16) For ye, brethren, became followers ( mimetes) of the churches of God.... All modern versions translate mimetes as imitators. Those who merely imitate the churches of God might be regarded as cults or sects. They are obviously not the genuine article. Those who follow have in mind the example and testimony of the one they seek to follow.

1 Thes. 4: 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will

74

75 God bring with him. W E Vine tells us ―the margin, “through” is correct; the preposition dia is not elsewhere translated ‘in’, and cannot bear that meaning. Moreover, while the phrase “in Christ” is frequently used by the Apostle to express the intimacy of the relation between the believer and the Risen Lord, believers are never said to be ‘in Jesus’, see notes on 1:1. What a pity that Vine didn’t think of looking in Newberry’s Bible. He would have been saved from this miserable faux pas. The other verses where dia is translated ‘in’ are:Matt. 26: 61 This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in (dia) three days. (Newberry missed this one.) 1 Tim. 2: 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (dia) childbearing. Heb. 7: 9 Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in(dia) Abraham. Heb. 13: 12 suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in (dia) few words. 2 Peter 3: 5 by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in(dia)the water: Vine’s statement is therefore false on three counts. The preposition dia IS elsewhere translated ‘in’. It CAN bear that meaning, as the verses above show us, and believers ARE said to be ‘in Jesus’ as 1 Thes. 4: 14 accurately and faithfully assures us. Shall I believe Vine or shall I believe my Bible? This really is the issue that has to be faced. Our brethren are awed by scholarship. It has been placed on the highest pedestal of idolatry. But in the case before us we see that scholarship had gone into hiding. Vine was a great scholar but here he was relying on his own intellect and simply had not done his homework. As far as them that sleep in Jesus is concerned, our critics immediately fly at us with the question “well then, what does it mean if it does not mean ‘through Jesus’.” The question tells us a little more about our critics. They have their theology and the Bible must fit round it. Our first answer is we accept the written word of God whether we understand it or not. If the words do not make sense to us we have to confess that it is due to a lack of sense on our part and not due to a lack in the word of God. The statement If we believe that Jesus died and rose again brings the Man before us. His humanity is in view. It is not here that Christ died and rose again. This truth is expressed in 1 Cor. 15. In 1 Thess. It is the Man Jesus who died and rose again. Believers who die before the Rapture are now said to be asleep (this does not imply a state of limbo) and those who sleep are sleeping IN Jesus. They must therefore be brought with Him in that day for it is Jesus Who died and rose and is coming again. When we get to v16 it is the Lord Who is spoken of and so we read of the dead in Christ. The moral is DON’T TRUST THE SCHOLARS. READ YOUR OWN BIBLE. 1 Thes. 5: 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. Modern versions read, “abstain from every form of evil”. While we should certainly do this, it is not what the Scripture says here. There are several Greek words translated “form” in the AV Bible and eidos (appearance) is not one of them. It is not merely abstaining from all different types of evil. It is that which has the external show or semblance of evil that must be avoided. 2 Thes.2:2. ….the day of Christ is at hand.

75

76

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" *. So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ". The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means that), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what every modern version is about. *The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos. For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith. 1 Timothy 1: 11 see 2 Cor.4: 4 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. A writer tells us that "The word 'wise' is best omitted from the text since Paul is emphasising that God is the only God." We infer from that statement that Timothy might have thought there were other Gods but needed to be reassured that there was only one wise one. So the word 'wise' must be excised from Scripture and Paul was very unwise to have put it in his letter. We have scholars today who are a cut above the apostles¾which seems to be the reasoning of some of our brethren today. “But wait a moment” cry the critics, “Paul couldn't have written 'wise', because he had already done that at the end of Romans and you could hardly have him repeating himself. Some stupid copyist must have thought it nice to include it at this point.” So, we read elsewhere, "MSS support is weak for 'wise' and RV and JND omit it." What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? John Ritchie. I counted 14 listed mss, plus a handful of cursives that support the omission (Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version; J.Moorman). But there are 15 listed mss plus THOUSANDS of cursives that include 'wise'. So the vast majority is pitted against the two wise gods RV and JND, (which remain unread and unknown by the vast majority of believers). Further, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzen both quote 'the only wise God'. No, they didn't themselves put it in; G. of Nyssa was quoting it in refuting the error of Eunomius. The statement 'MSS [it should be MS] support is weak ', is seen then as a lie. It is a lie perpetuated by a reliance on the false gods of textual criticism. 1 Timothy 2: 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Some are telling us that this verse could be translated from the Greek to read “But I suffer not a wife to teach nor to usurp authority over her husband.”

76

77 A correspondent (seeking to promote a book Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women) writes to give assurance that this is the correct translation. He knows because “as a Classics graduate, [he] can vouch for the accuracy of the exposition of the key passages from the Greek New Testament.” The verse here in question is one such passage. How does my correspondent’s erudition compare to that of John Spenser? This man was chosen Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford in 1579. He had been elected Greek lecturer at this college at the age of nineteen. McClure wrote “of his eminent scholarship there can be no doubt. (The Translators Revived) . It was Spenser and his team who translated gunē in this verse as “a woman”. He thereby was in agreement with Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, Even the Rheims translation has “woman” Modern Versions such as the RV, NIV, ESV all have “woman” as do the more “way out” versions, God’s Word, the Message. I haven’t found a version reading “wife”. We need hardly point out that the AV translators were well aware that gunē may be also translated “wife”. The context decides whether “woman” or “wife” is required. Therefore one does not require the help of Dr Modern Apostate Scholar in fixing the reading. Confidence and faith in the God given English Bible is all that is needed for an understanding. “her husband” is an interpretation and not a translation. There is no possessive pronoun “her” in the Greek Text. We must beware those who consider themselves to be cleverer than the Book. 1 Timothy 3: 1 This is a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. W E Vine assures us “there is no mention of an office in the original….Literally the phrase is ‘seeketh overseership’”. But this IS the office —overseership. “Office of a bishop” represents just one Greek word; episkopee. It is twice translated “visitation” (Luke 19: 44, 1 Peter 2: 12), and once “bishopric”. This phrase is the stumbling block of the Brethren, who are fearful of anything connected with eccliasticism. It is one of the reasons why our leading brethren reject the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture. Their rejection is based on two misunderstandings, 1.The AV translators had to preserve all eccliastical terms. They did not do so in Acts 20:28, the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. The translators went for accuracy. 2. The word “office” is taken to mean rank or position. But the primary meaning of the word is anything done for another; service. (Webster) which is what we have in this verse. The NIV reads, “if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer”. This is a mistranslation, shifting the emphasis from the work to the person. The AV reading does not do this. 1 Timothy 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh. All believers ought to be aware that "He who was manifest in the flesh" is a spurious reading. Yet we find this being presented as "perhaps better" in a Christian magazine freely circulated among us. One dislikes being for ever critical but when our brethren set themselves up as critics of the text they must not complain at some return. The traditional reading is not peculiar to the AV Bible. It is found in Tyndale's translation, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible. "God" is also found in the major European Bibles of Diotati (Italian), Osterwald (French), Valera (Spanish), Luther (German), Almeida (Portuguese), and many others. The vast majority of existing Greek mss. have the word for God. The ancient versions likewise, e.g. Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Gothic, and more besides. Several of the Fathers refer to God manifest in the flesh. A few mss. have the equivalent of "who" or "which". The Codex Alexandricus, held in the British Museum, appears to have been altered at this verse but the scholars who were able to examine it were in agreement that the original text read THEOS, agreeing with the Received Text, God was manifest in the flesh. (See TBS leaflet No.103).

77

78

Why do we read then in Present Truth, N0.90, p.93, "Microscopic examination of the earliest texts were universally in favour of the [who] reading". (my italics). It appears that the proven Godbreathed words God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit upset the theology of some. The writer goes on to ask "How do we understand God justified in spirit?" (sic). To believe that the actual text of Scripture depends on our understanding of it is rationalism. Has one never read John 1:32-34? I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.... and I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God. Not the title Christ, nor the Lamb of God, but that which speaks of His full and absolute Godhood, The Son of God, is used by John, by which he gave public testimony to this fact, that God was now manifest in the flesh, justified as such by the visitation of the Holy Spirit. Our writer goes on, "why is there little evidence of this Scripture [God was....] being used in the controversies of the early centuries.... Surely this Scripture would have been an end to all argument". To which the answer may be given,- why do not the modern counterparts of the old heretics, the Unitarians, RC's, JW's slink away when confronted with the truth? Because they reject the truth out of hand, and will not listen to it, preferring their Unitarian NIV bibles etc. One other thing our writer cannot understand is "God received up in glory". Christ yes, he says, but God no. He hastens to assure us that he does not doubt the divinity of Christ, but we are beginning to wonder. The old lie is that Christ ceased to be possessed of deity at the cross. But, But He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, Mark 16:19. Who is this that Mark speaks of? Christ, certainly, but we have further titles of deity given - The LORD said unto my Lord (Adon=Sovereign God), sit thou at my right hand. Psalm 110:1. How can He be God manifested in the flesh during His life here, and God in exaltation at the right hand of the Father, but not God during His ascension? 1 Timothy 6: 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil. The ESV makes it indefinite and plural: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils”. The NKJV (which we are assured merely updates the language of the AV) changes the meaning also by reading, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”. Darby also wasn’t able to see evil as a single entity, for he made it read, “For the love of money is [the] root of every evil”. He bracketed “the” because he thought there were other roots (of evil). His footnote reads “There is no article in the Greek. It is not that there is no other root, but the love of money is characterised by being such”. If there are other roots of evil, the Scripture doesn’t tell us of them. Evil is the generic term for all that is not good ( see Ecc.12:14, Rom.7:19, 9: 11). There are not different kinds of evils. 1 Timothy 6: 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. Modern versions shy away from science. They prefer to call it “falsely called knowledge” (NRSV) and make it a mere contradiction and not an opposition which is open hostility to the truth. Christians are not opposed to true science. But evolutionism is not true science though evolutionists like to regard it as such. Textual Criticism is not true science either. We note that “science” disappeared from modern versions at the same time these false sciences began to appear. 2 Timothy 2: 15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. This verse is quoted in Counsel, No.33, vol. 6 (Nov-Dec 2003), where it is given as “Do your best

78

79 to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handing [sic] the Word of truth”. This reading is attributed to the R V. The first thing we notice is that this verse is not found thus in the R.V. The R.V. reading is “ Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.” The N.I. V. has “Do your best to present yourself.....who correctly handles the word of truth.” The T.E.V. has “Do your best to win full approval...one who correctly teaches the message of God’s truth”. But God does not ask us to do our best. Our best can never be good enough for God. We are commanded to study and liberal neo-evangelicals do not like to. The standard set in 2 Tim. 2: 15 is what God expects the believer to attain to. My best may leave me very short of it. Study is a good word and adequately translates spoudazo, being the application of the mind to the subject in hand. 2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour. Peter Caws wrote, Darby was preoccupied with purity of doctrine as a legal matter, and was obsessed with the idea of separation. So much so, that he actually invented and introduced into his translation of the Scriptures a gloss on 2 Timothy 2:21 that is not required by the Greek. The words ‘in separating himself from them’, appears in brackets but have been accorded the status of the inspired Word.¾ Belief and morals among the Taylorites; Evangelical Times; Oct.2000. Darby’s verse reads, ‘If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour.’ The introduction to JND’s translation tells us that ‘square brackets in the text (as in the verse quoted) indicate (a) words added to complete the sense in English similar to those shown in italics in the Authorized Version; or (b) words as to which there are variations in the original manuscripts.’ There are no variations relating to the statement in this verse, so (a) applies. But Darby has done more than give the sense. As Caws rightly points out, the words have been added to the page of Scripture, and not supplied as a footnote so therefore they have been accorded the status of the inspired Word. The phrase, if a man therefore purge himself from these carries the sense of the Greek fully. In the context Paul is calling for a complete separation not only from evil things but from evil men. Darby was right, doctrinally, in his addition, but very wrong to place it upon the page of what he would have to be Scripture. He is wrong also to change the verb from ‘purge’ to ‘purified’, which weakens the sense of the statement. Darby also changes the tense without warrant. Separation is a vital doctrine of Scripture but Darby set the pattern which would lead Exclusive Brethrenism into the cult it is today. It is a cult more deadly than Russellism, though not as wide spread. 2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Timothy did not have access to the original manuscripts. He had to rely on copies. But, says the Apostle, they are nevertheless Holy Scriptures. Then he went on immediately to say that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is, the copies (of copies of copies....) handed down to Timothy were THE SCRIPTURES and were therefore HOLY. One imperfection would make them unholy. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Or does one think it possible to live a holy life as long as one's sins are neither too great nor too many? Knowing the Holy Scriptures was Timothy's safeguard against evil men and remains the 20th

79

80 Century believer's defence in these perilous times. “No, not perilous” says Darby, “just difficult”. So Darby removes the Holy Scriptures and gives Timothy sacred letters instead. The NASV would prefer Timothy to know the sacred writings. All revisionists hate the idea of believers being in possession of the Holy Scriptures. “Sacred” is a Romish word and does not translate any Greek word found in the NT, and “writings” may be produced by anybody. It is commonly acknowledged that we are in the last days. Therefore we expect the Holy Scriptures to come under their fiercest attack. Satan, the Master Revisionist, is determined to destroy the faith of many. He does so by weakening the believer's confidence in a God given, Spirit preserved, 100% perfect (howls of mirth from the mockers) Holy Bible. Satan uses men of repute in his evil work; chief men among the brethren. Preparations for our perilous times were accelerated at the end of the 19th Century by Westcott and Hort. Satan's work has been flourishing in the last half of the20th Century. In 1940 Vine's Expository Dictionary was published. One does not wish to decry the many helps now available for the study of Scripture, and the motives of men such as Vine are not in question in their desire to encourage a true knowledge of the Word. But it has not happened. Believers hardly read the Bible now, let alone study it. The reason is plain enough for this neglect. They are repeatedly being told that the Bible is defective in thousands of places. We read the foreword to Vine's Dictionary and find this:- "But the fact remains that they who are entirely dependent upon a Version must miss very much of the glory and richness of these (NT) Writings." What an ignorant lie! It is a hellish lie. We do not hesitate to call it that. Note that the New Testament is reduced to mere writings and that no version can be Scripture. Satan has used Vine to cause believers to think that they cannot understand the Bible without his dictionary. Vine was himself dependent upon these apostate scholars, as the foreword goes on to tell us, “These works [of Grimm-Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur] provide the lexical skeleton. Mr Vine's work clothes that skeleton with the flesh and sinews of living exposition.... doing for the non-specialist what is being done for the specialist by Kittel's Theological Dictionary to the NT.” Thayer was a Unitarian. Kittel was a Nazi war criminal. None of these was a believer. I am not making a judgment. One can check these things out for oneself. The fact that modern versionists do not understand the Scriptures, the reason being because they are not saved, is apparent from their mutilation of this verse. Outside Brook Street Chapel, Tottenham, there stands a poster displaying these words, 'The Holy Scriptures are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.' (Good News bible). Now, these words may be true when directed to the unconverted, but they are not true in the context of 2 Timothy and they are not Scripture. They represent a false interpretation of the passage. The modern versionist will be well aware that the epistle is directed first to Timothy. The singular thou addresses this verse to him. The implication therefore is that Timothy had not yet attained to salvation, i.e. was not saved at the time of Paul's writing to him. The evangelical doctrine of salvation is not held by modern versionists and textual critics. They do not believe that it is possible to know that one can be saved and assured of heaven here on this earth. This is the teaching of the good news bible. Some good news indeed! Timothy had been grounded in the Scriptures (our Old Testament) from a child. When he heard the gospel of Christ proclaimed he found it to be fully in accord with what he had already learned and so he believed it. From that moment he was a saved man in possession of full salvation. But it wasn't only that the Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation. They continued to maintain the same ability, now through the application of faith, to make him wise unto the salvation which he presently enjoyed. That is, his exercise of faith enabled him to apply the Scriptures in gaining the wisdom necessary to take full advantage of his salvation. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable....

80

81

The word "inspiration" is the translation of the Greek word theopnustos (from Theos=God; pneo= to blow), thus a translation "God-breathed" might seem reasonable. But the translators knew that to be inadequate, for some have taken that to mean "out-breathed". If the Scriptures were merely breathed out by God then they might well have been dissipated into the atmosphere for any to catch hold of them. But we are to understand that they were breathed IN. They were breathed into the men, that is, given by means of first breathing into the men who were to record each word of God, jot by jot, and tittle by tittle, so that all believers might know God's word. So the word INspiration is used, which does not mean OUTspiration. It is derived from the Latin spiritus (=breathing). We are familiar with "aspire" (lit. to breathe towards), "conspire" (lit. to blow together), "expire" (lit. to breathe out or die). Modern translations give "God-breathed" because they reject the doctrine of verbal inspiration whereby God imparted His words directly and personally syllable by syllable, word by word, jot by jot, to men of His own choosing, who then wrote them down entirely without error. Beware: IN does not mean OUT! Of course, the GIVING of Scripture was a unique act of God. It did not need to be repeated. We do not believe, as some falsely charge us, that the AV was a separately inspired Book. But we can say as we read the Bible that we are reading the inspired word of God, because inspiration is not lost in translation. God's word is not confined to a particular language, as some are teaching today. Those holding that view must believe in an incompetent god, who having once spoken then finds himself powerless to have his words passed on faithfully to succeeding generations of differing tongues. I believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture. I believe in the permanent preservation of that same Scripture. We have it in the Authorized Bible. Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Modem versions change the reading to (a).... The blessed hope, and appearing (b) of the glory of (c) our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' Three unnecessary changes are made on the grounds of making a more accurate translation. Our AV translators believed that (a) ten, should be treated as a demonstrative adjective, and should be translated as 'that' and not 'the'. This is quite proper and the RV does the same in a number of places -thus we have, 'This testimony is true' in 1:13. Why not be consistent and put "The testimony is true"~ The RV change has been followed slavishly ever since by the modem versionists. This is probably because they are not looking for that blessed hope spoken of in this verse. There is an emphasis on that blessed hope that unconverted men do not want. Then, (b), 'of the glory' seriously weakens the manifestation of Christ Himself. We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him: for shall see him as he is. So said John, 1 Jn.3:2. Believers are waiting to see Him. Of course, they will see His glory but above all they want to gaze upon the person of their Lord and Saviour. What a glorious appearing that will be! The Thessalonian believers were commended for the manner in which they had turned from idols... and to wait for His Son from heaven. 1 Thes.1:9,10. They were not waiting for a show of glory. They were waiting for the Son of God to descend from heaven into the air to receive His own to Himself for ever more. That is plainly the next great event in God's calendar, for still we wait and we are not told of anything that needs to be fulfilled in the meanwhile. A glorious appearing indeed! (c) is an attack on the deity of Christ though we appreciate that those making the change think that the deity of Christ is more emphasized by the RV. \'ine says concerning this phrase. 'the RV is almost certainly right in giving the rendering which applies both titles to the Lord Jesus.' Note, he says ALMOST. i.e. he does not know for sure,

81

82 scholar that he was. That is what scholars do, by the way. They change things round by guesswork knowing that the poor untutored ploughboy will accept their words as gospel truth. We notice in any case that the scholars cannot agree among themselves as to what the correct reading should be. (The AV scholars were all agreed of course;. Alford thought the RV to be wrong. The Rt. Hon. and Rt. Rev. Lord A C Hervey, DD. thought the RV to be wrong. (There's a mouthful that ought to impress!) He tells us, in the Pulpit Commentary on Titus, that Huther [sic] held to the AV reading. Good for him, whoever he was. Some one will write to me to tell me that these only held to the AV reading because they thought that 'the great God and our Saviour' were two separate subjects, and that the AV makes this plain. It does not. Our Saviour Jesus Christ is the great God. God was manifest in the flesh. He remains ever a Man. That Man Who will shortly appear is the great God and not only that, He is our Saviour Jesus Christ. Now, I know that there are very many clever brethren who will say, yes, but...' To them I say that if we do not have a definitive Bible, accurate in its entirety, then we have nothing at all. If men can chop and change the Bible according to their whim, and if they can 'flood the market' with version after version. and expect us to go along with them then we shall all end up in cloud-cuckoo land, blown about by every wind of doctrine. Hebrews 1:3 …when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. The Rheims version has "making purgation of sins", omitting by himself adapting Scripture to justify their blasphemous doctrine of purgatory. The NIV has "After he had provided purification for sins", so following the Romish tradition promulgated by W & H in the RV. We have heard this and other false Romish readings quoted publicly, making us think that perhaps there are Jesuit fifth-columnists operating among us. There are certain men crept in unawares, says Jude. We must not be deluded into thinking that in these days they have disappeared. The AV reading is as usual well attested in ancient manuscripts. There are no reliable grounds for changing it. Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? The NIV changes this verse to read “For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” This is a rank denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ. Flannigan says in his commentary concerning this verse as found in Psalm 2 (What the Bible Teaches) He who is the Son eternally has been begotten into manhood to be recognised in humanity for what He has ever been in deity, the Son of God This implies that Christ was not the only begotten Son from eternity. “Only begotten” speaks of the intimate relationship existing between Father and Son. To deny this is to deny the Son and brings the denier under the condemnation of John 3:18, …he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. In this verse “begotten” is missing from modern versions, openly showing the critics to be condemned unbelievers.

Hebrews 2: 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,

82

83 crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. In this verse J N Darby introduces two errors, the first being blasphemous, where he has “Jesus, made some little inferior to angels”. It is useless arguing that the word “inferior” carries with it the sense of being lower than. The word also means of poorer quality; mediocre; less important than and is therefore a most unacceptable word to translate elattoo The reference is to the incarnation of Christ and nothing in this made Him inferior in the common meaning of the word. The second error is also without foundation. Every man is changed to “every thing”. Darby admits in a footnote to this verse that the Greek can be translated “for every one”, so why does he make the change? Wycliffe had “for alle men”. Tyndale had “for all men” , Cranmer and the Geneva Bible the same. Even the Rheims Version has “for al” with the clear implication that it is for men. The NIV also has “for everyone”. The context demands only one interpretation; the value of Christ’s death for the whole human race and with special benefit to the “many sons” being led to glory. This verse, given by the Holy Spirit, condemns the Calvinist’s view of a limited atonement which is why they mutilate the word of God as we have it in our Authorized Bible. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment... The NIV reading "....man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...." is a false reading riddled with error. Destiny and appointment are not the same. Being destined suggests fatalism, and it shuts God out. But God has made the appointment so none can break it. It is not "man" i.e. the whole of mankind, that is subject to this for many will not see death when they are caught up to meet Christ in the air. It is not merely to face judgment as though some might at the end escape punishment as some among us erroneously teach. It is the judgment at the Great White Throne where every ungodly man and woman from guilty Cain on will be exposed and then cast into the lake of fire. Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; Critics insist that the reading should be “the profession of our hope”, and that the translators of the AV Bible made an awful blunder here which has been perpetuated ever since. D Kutilek, in the book One Bible Only? Makes this statement: Henry Alford (1810-1871), noted English New Testament scholar and a member of the English Revised Version translation committee, mentions in passing, the belief of some people whom he knew that the KJV was infallible. In his comments on Hebrews 10:23, he remarks, ‘ We have an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through the centuries. The word “faith”, given here by the A.V., instead of hope ....was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God. The words quoted by Kutilek are allegedly from The New Testament for English Readers, vol.4 (reprint, Grand Rapids; Baker, 1983). These words are not found in Alford’s Greek New Testament. We can be sure that for whatever the reason elpis was translated as faith and not “hope” as in every other instance, it was not a blunder. It was considered by a panel of translators that faith would be the better word in this verse. Faith and hope are intimately linked of course. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb.11:1) Our profession is evidence that we are believers, i.e. we have faith. Hope cannot be witnessed, it

83

84 is all to do with the future. Faith, we think, is the better word in Hebrews 10:23. Because it is there it is the correct word. Hebrews 11: 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. A few modern versions change worlds to ages. This is not due to ms differences but to interpretation. Certainly the Greek word is aion, which literally means age but this does not make sense in this context. Ages cannot be seen. Material things are in view This is a verse that speaks clearly of Creation. The use of katartizo (framed) implies this. Hebrews 11: 23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper (asteios) child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. “....they saw he was a beautiful child” CEV and other modern versions inc. NKJV and JND. Asteios occurs in only one other place; Acts 7: 20, and reads exceeding fair. This also refers to Moses. Moses may well have been a beautiful baby but his parents saw beyond this and they did so through the exercise of faith. They knew and understood that God had a specific purpose for their son in the years ahead. What they saw (understood) therefore was that Moses was a proper child. In modern terms we define proper as “fit for purpose”. This is the meaning of asteios. Our bible critics, not moved by faith, miss this entirely. Moses would be the man raised up of God to lead the people of God. The words exceeding fair in Acts mean exactly the same as in Hebrews. Fair may be translated “proper under the rules” as in “it was a fair fight”. Moses’ exceeding fairness was the desirability that God saw in him. Moses ‘ mother had recognized God’s interest in her son when she saw him that he was a goodly child. Ex. 2: 2. His goodliness was Godward. Hebrews 11: 35 Women received their dead raised to life again. “Women received their dead by a resurrection”. RV “Women received their dead by resurrection” NRSV (This compounds the error of the RV). “ Women received their dead again by resurrection.” Darby “Women received back their dead by resurrection”. ESV We see that modern versions make Christ to be a liar. The Lord spoke of but two resurrections; the resurrection of life, and the resurrection of judgment. The AV translators were well aware of this so resurrection isn’t mentioned until the end of the verse, the raising here being of an altogether different nature. In any case the preposition ek (out of) used concerning dead raised to life again, is not found concerning the better resurrection. The reason for this is plain enough. Many taking part in the first and better resurrection will not have tasted death. Those dead received back by their women did not have changed bodies It was no true resurrection. They lived to die again. The word “better” does not imply being of the same kind but superior. Compare Matt. 6: 26 Behold the fowls of the air….Are ye not much better than they? Also, Matt. 12: 12, etc. Hebrews 12: 16,17

84

85 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sort it carefully with tears. ASV “....he found no place for a change of mind in his father”. CEV “....even though he begged his father and cried.” GW “....even though he begged and cried for the blessing, he couldn’t do anything to change what had happened.” Those opposed to genuine heart repentance make a travesty of this verse. The Scripture teaches us here that Esau lived and died an unrepentant fornicator and profane person. He made a great show with his crocodile tears and hoped there might be some way out of his mess but he was never truly sorry for his deeds. He wished to repent on his own terms as many do today. There are many who show a degree of remorse. They wish they could change things and they make a form of believing. They’ll do anything but change their mind about their sin. They will even give it up BUT in their heart they relish what they have done so they have not repented. Esau was such a man. Suggesting it was his father who needed to change his mind is an opinion not found in the text and it mocks God. Hebrews 12: 1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us... “....and the sin that clings so closely...” NRSV, ESV “....and the sin which so easily ensnares us...” NKJV “....and the sin which so easily entangles us....” JND “....and of the sin which holds us so tightly....” CEV The sin is sin in general and not here a particular addictive sin as some teach. Such teaching is dangerous and rather than helping to overcome a particular sin, instead stimulates it. The impression is that we all have a particular sin that we cannot shake off so we must just run on and do our best. The sin, albeit unwillingly, is condoned. Beset and surround are synonyms. All around us are those who overcame. They ran the race and they wear the victor’s crown. We can therefore do the same. Sin cannot actually get hold of us and drag us out of the race (unless we allow it). It cannot cling to us , it cannot entangle us. It may beset us. That is, as we run, it tries to close in on us and surround us so hindering our running. But we lay it aside at the beginning of the race and run on. The believer IS an overcomer. Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. We hear this statement, "The AV wrongly reads...." and we might think that we are being given the benefit of scholarly information. More often it is modernistic misinformation. An example lies before me; I quote, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators (not 'whoremongers' as the AV wrongly reads)...." John Spencer helped translate the book of Hebrews for the 1611 AV Bible. At 19 years of age he lectured in Greek at Oxford. Another translator was John Bois. By the age of six he could read and write Hebrew. Most of the translators were fluent in a number of languages besides Hebrew and Greek. I would like to know what are the linguistic abilities of our modern critics.

85

86 As for the AV rendering of 'pornos' translated 'whoremonger' in Heb.13:4, I look in my Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, 1805 edition, and read:- "pornos: an impure or unclean person of whatever kind". Reliable English dictionaries tell us that 'whoremonger' is in current usage, (i.e. not an archaic word) meaning an immoral person. The AV therefore rightly reads. James 4: 4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses Maybe some adulterous copyist was convicted by this phrase, so “adulterers” is removed. There can be no other reason for the omission. Men are always ready to blame the woman for their own sins. The classic example is found in John 7: 53 – 8: 11. concerning “the woman taken in adultery”. Those scribes and Pharisees were careful not to arraign the guilty man. The perpetrators of the NIV went further. They added a footnote: “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have 7: 53 – 8: 11” . A lie of course. “Adulterers” is found in the majority of manuscripts. It is missing from Aleph* A B. James 5: 16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Here is a case of wilful alteration of the word of God, at an early stage. We find the Greek word paraptoma removed from six papyri/uncial manuscripts and some—but not many—cursives. This Spirit given word was replaced with hamartia. Alterations in the ancient manuscripts are frequently explained away as “slips” or even “glosses”. Sometimes, we are told, the manuscript has been “corrected” by scholars who realized that the original writer, whether Paul, Peter, James, John. Luke, Matthew, Mark, etc had simply got it wrong. It is hardly a slip here. It is not something to be excused as careless copying. The two words are very dissimilar. They do not look alike. This is a wilful change, which affects doctrine and practice, and is plainly popish. Paraptoma appears in the majority of cursives as well as K L 049. It is also extant in 056 and 0142. So the modern versions , as in the NIV read “confess your sins to each other” and the Confessional is immediately justified. It is a matter of concern that our leading bible teachers are ready to use the NIV publicly. The Gospel Hall Confessional Box is not so very far away. We confess our faults to one another. We do it as they occur and harmonious fellowship continues with answered prayer. The man who confesses his sins to others will soon have the gathering as corrupt as he is. Some of our brethren take delight in giving their testimony in which they appear to gloat over past immorality and wickedness. 1 Peter 2: 2 As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. “Like new born babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV) The ASV is worse than the NIV. It reads, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.” J N Darby also carries this blunder, “...that ye may grow up to salvation”. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) emphasises this error with, “....pure spiritual milk that will help you grow and be saved. The CEV with the other modern versions has Peter writing to unsaved believers, who can eventually get saved as long as they keep on drinking their milk. They don’t mean Bible study either, because the words of the word are omitted from them all. This is a salvation by works alteration; an early addition to the text. All who are genuinely saved will recognize this to be a false reading. The majority of cursive manuscripts omit “unto salvation”.

86

87 1 Peter 2:9 Ye are…. A peculiar people… Peculiar, according to the Oxford Dictionary has the primary meaning of ‘belonging exclusively to, particular, special’. Its secondary meaning is ‘strange or odd’. The expression ‘peculiar people’, says the Ox. Dict., applies to (1) The Jews, (2) God’s elect. The Greek word translated ‘peculiar’ is peripoyeesis. Eph.1:14 translates this Greek word as ‘purchased possession’, where the word peculiar would make a clumsy reading. Such is the beauty and range of the English language that the translators had a choice of words at their disposal when translating the Greek. Wycliffe used the phrase ‘3e ben ….a puple of purchasing’ in 1 Peter, because he had never heard of the word peculiar. It wasn’t coined until the 15th C., though it stems from the old word, pecu meaning ‘herd’. The word ‘peculiar’ carries such precision and accuracy that we are well pleased with it in our AV Bible. It is a pity therefore, that we find on our Calendar daily reading for 9th June these sentiments; The word “peculiar” that the KJV uses in this passage does not really convey the meaning of the term it translates (although there certainly are some peculiar saints! [these words mock God’s elect-R S] ). There are a number of ideas conveyed in this phrase. One translation puts it: “a people for God’s own possession” while another says, “a people out of the ordinary.” One of the problems seems to be that our modern commentators not only do not understand Scripture, they do not understand the English language either. Scripture was not given to “convey ideas”. Scripture is the express word of God. The calendar quotes given above do not convey the word of God. 1 Peter 2: 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby. The ESV, being based on the perverted RSV, reads “Like new born babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.” So the ESV teaches that salvation occurs over a period of time and it is based on self effort. Salvation is a free gift and one neither grows up to it nor can one work for it. The ESV spiritual milk we note has nothing to do with the Word. The ESV is the perversion of Scripture now being promoted by the North American Gospel Hallers; people who once regarded themselves as conservative fundamentalists. 1John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world. This verse is an acute embarrassment to the Calvinists who believe that God has predestinated the greater part of the human race to be damned for eternity, and it serves them right, miserable sinners that they are! But the verse is crystal clear and there are no problems with so-called variant readings. So the Calvinists make a great play on the italicised words, the sins of... They are not in the text, they tell us. Of course not! That is why the translators put them in, to fill in the ellipsis. An ellipsis is a word or words left out because they are fully understood and the sentence makes sense without them. Thus if the words the sins of are omitted it makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of the sentence. But this is a Calvinistic red-herring. They make a fuss about these words to distract from the preceding words and not for our’s only. But first, what is propitiation? It is this; Christ in His sacrificial death is the appeasement of a holy and righteous God in His anger against sin. His precious shed blood has satisfied the justice of our God. It is for our, yes, OUR sins. For we believers. But wait; not for ours only. A propitiation

87

88 for others, besides those of us who are born again? Does John mean the OT saints? Or does he mean the tribulation saints? Who is he referring to? “The whole world”, says the Holy Spirit, through John. Every man and every woman is included. The word ‘ours’ speaks of our sins, laid upon Him. And not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. This does not imply that the unrepentant sinner cannot be punished for his sins for if he does not come to the "mercy seat" he will not receive a pardon. The OT offerer, presenting his sacrifice of the herd for a burnt offering, was required to put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Lev.1:4. It was a voluntary offering, and by placing his hand on the beast the offerer's sins were imputed to the animal. Our gospel today is whosoever will may come. None has been predestinated to damnation. The sacrifice is made and the sinner may go free. So we read in Romans 3:24, Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. There is the propitiation - Christ Himself. Faith in His blood brings the repentant sinner into the good of it. 1 John 3:1 Behold,what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Also, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. John.1:12 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. The NASB reads “See how great a love the father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God; and such we are.” James R White tells us the words “and such we are” are missing from the AV Bible because , I quote, The King James was based upon a small number of manuscripts representing the later form of the text, the standard Greek of the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries. Earlier manuscripts contain the phrase “and such we are.” So why do the later manuscripts not contain it? Because of the kind of visual error you and I have also made many times. — Scripture Alone; Bethany House; 2004; p.141.

88

89 White persists in this lie. The words are missing from the majority of manuscripts. White’s “earlier” manuscripts are five in number, all Alexandrian in character are; Alpha A B C P. Yet strangely, he informs his readers there “are only two readings for this phrase, and one of them is original”. What he means by original he cares not tell. Does he mean there is a manuscript in existence which has been proven to be in the handwriting of Paul himself? These earlier manuscripts have been preserved simply because the early churches regarded them as spurious and threw them out. Otherwise they would have been worn out very quickly. 1 John 3: 4 sin is the transgression of the law. Those opposing Calvinism have problems with this verse. They think the AV reading supports Calvinism by its reference to the law and that the true reading should be “sin is lawlessness”. D Dunlap in his book, Limiting Omnipotence, p.211, quotes J N Darby; “ ‘sin is the transgression of the law’ This is really, I must say, a wicked subjection of the Word to theology; the word anomia is never used for ‘transgesion of the law’ anywhere else in the English translation of the Holy Scriptures…I call it wicked because by it a human system denies what the Word of God carefully insists on. It is assumed that the AV translators were all Calvinists and wickedly perverted the word of God to support their error. But D H Sorenson points out that The forty seven men appointed to be translators of the King James Version were renowned not only as scholars but as men of God as well. Some were thorough going Anglicans [none like them today-R.S.], some were Calvinists, some were Puritans, and one may have been an Arminian in his theology. But they were fervent Bible believers and stood squarely upon the cardinal, orthodox doctrines of New Testament Christianity. – Touch not the Unclean Thing-The text Issue and Separation. Any who have read The Translators to the Reader and Translating for King James will appreciate the integrity of these men and their faithfulness to the text. Not all of them were Calvinists Darby’s words are a smear. Darby’s theology was weak in in a number of areas. He denied the baptism of believers by immersion for a start. He also thought himself qualified to write his own bible. So maybe his theology which is popular with the Brethren today is shaky on this ground also. He failed to grasp John’s line of teaching. Had not the translators written until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom. 5: 13 ? They were well aware that sin existed before the giving of the law. They knew sin could not therefore be imputed. But when the law came it put a name to sin and any sin henceforth would have to be a transgression of that law. Even within the context of 1 John 3 the translators knew that sin existed before the law . They wrote in v. 8 The devil sinneth from the beginning.

1 John 4: 1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist. Modern versions such as NIV,ESV etc attempt to dodge the charge of being antichrist by omitting “Christ come in the flesh”. They pretend that they acknowledge Jesus and this is enough. What do they acknowledge? It may be no more than believing a man lived 2000 years ago named Jesus and he lived a good life. They think if they remain silent about the Anointed One foretold in the Prophets to be born of a virgin in the City of David, named Jesus, demonstrated to

89

90 be God manifest in the flesh then they are not false spirits. The very omission of the phrase declares the producers of these blasphemous versions to be antichrist. Silence on this vital issue will show the nature of the spirit to be that of antichrist. Thus the platform man denying 1 Tim. 3: 16, God was manifest in the flesh lets his audience know he has come in the spirit of antichrist. John is teaching us that Jesus did not become the Christ subsequent to His birth at Bethlehem. He is the One Who came out from God, the eternal Son, the Lord from heaven. The men behind the various parodies of Scripture do not believe this. 1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. This is a seriously mutilated verse in most modern versions. The NASB has “in us” instead of toward us. Dr Ruckman points out that the subject of what God manifested is “God sending His only begotten Son into the world.” How this was done IN us is past finding out unless He sent His Son IN us when His Son was born at Bethlehem. The context of 1 John 4:9 is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (v.10). God did not send HIS Son INTO anybody then, nor was God’s love manifest IN anybody by the death of His Son, until that person accepted that Son as his own blood atonement for sin. The NIV and NRSV, perhaps realising the folly of the NASB have “among us” instead of toward us. But again, He was not “among us” at Bethlehem. He came to his own and His own received Him not. These changes are a denial of the need for individual conversion. At least the JW New World Translation is more reliable here, “By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him.” Even “only-begotten” is retained in this otherwise pernicious mockery of the Scriptures. We point out again that those who deny the only-begottenness of the Son can hardly be saved, according to Christ’s own words in John 3: 16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him (that is, believeth in the only begotten Son) should not perish but have everlasting life. The denial of Christ’s being the only begotten of the Father is a full fronted attack on the person of Christ. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This statement of testimony to the Holy Trinity is so well attested that there is little need to say much here. Its defence is well set out in the works of J Moorman (When the KJV departs from the “Majority” Text; Ch.6) and M Maynard (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8). Also see the TBS pamphlet on this verse. A number of other defences have been published. We believe the attack on this verse to be satanic. We find that many believers accept the views of the critics without examining the evidence in favour of the verse. The critics are often contemptuous of those who hold to the AV Bible, as the internet article on this verse by D B Wallace Phd. shows — Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition. If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

90

91

Our observation is that Bible believers accept what is in their Bible without any reaction. The furore is caused by those who have an axe to grind, or a penknife to sharpen. Wallace shows that his rage is against believers more than the Book. Believers do not cling to tradition. They examine the evidence that is above all, a Bible that has stood the test of time and has been mightily blessed of God. As far as Wallace’s Model T is concerned, most of his modern contraptions have blown up along the way: Where is the RV now, or the RSV, the NEB, or 50+ other modern versions whose names cannot be remembered? The AV is a living Bible and in very good health. The critic boasts that no Greek manuscript can be found with 1 John 5:7 before 1215AD. But it is found in the Old Latin Bible which was the Bible of the church from 157AD, and read for 1000 years throughout Europe. The Celts in this country read it, and the Waldensians on the continent read it and were severely persecuted by Rome. The Old Latin Bible was not the bible of Rome. At least one “early Father”, Cyprian (d.258) quoted the verse. It has been shown that removal of the verse causes havoc to the grammar of the remaining words as the “ends” are brought together. The critics will pass off as facts the rumours and theories invented by themselves. (They have done this with the theory of evolution and its offspring the Gap Theory). It is stated as a fact that Erasmus—the critics always refer to him as a Roman Catholic humanist, even though his work was opposed by Rome—anxious to include 1 John 5:7 in his Greek NT, got a friend to produce a Greek manuscript for him, in time for his third edition. This ms is known as codex 61. Only our critic is not too sure of the inventor’s name. Was it Froy...or maybe Roy? It is assumed that Erasmus, great scholar that he was, would not be able to detect a forgery. Stephanus would have to be deceived as well, plus the Elzevir brothers and Tyndale, and all the scholars translating the AV Bible. Apart from this, Dr. John Cereghin in his internet article, “In Defense of Erasmus” shows that the Greek codex B, containing the verse, was known in 1520AD. Erasmus could hardly not have known of its existence. There are now some twenty mss found with this verse in them. The people who want 1John 5:7 omitted are not necessarily Unitarians but they do include liberal scholars and JW’s whose parody of the Scriptures is based on the Westcott/Hort text. The Mohammedans have also expressed delight at the removal of this verse. W Kelly wrote of this verse, Let me however shew that any Christian who does not know one Greek word ought to be satisfied that [the Johannine Comma] is spurious. Such a one needs neither men of learning nor even the fruit of their researches to decide the question for himself. The Word of God itself is amply sufficient and perfectly conclusive. First, what is the meaning of bearing witness “in heaven”? When you weigh the thought is it not (I will not say unscriptural only, but) rather folly? How could there be such a need or fact as to “bear witness in heaven”? Exposition of the Epistles of John; T Weston; p368. So rationalism must rule! If Kelly doesn’t agree with the statement, it shouldn’t be there. If the words are there, as the evidence now declares, then the folly is with the Holy Spirit for placing them there. Such is the seriousness of tampering with the word of God. Kelly continues, The natural denizens in heaven are angels who never needed witness borne to them....The fallen angels are irreparably lost....The spirits of saints gone to be with Christ, what possible witness can they require? It is on earth that witness is needed...because men are steeped in darkness and lack the truth. But the witness is primarily for believers (v11) and believers have access to heaven. More than this, they are made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. (Eph.5:6). Believers are right there where the record is made. Therefore believers have this record of a double trinity; in heaven and in earth. Here is a clear testimony to the trinity of the Godhead seen first in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The title “the Word” speaks of Christ, the One with God and being God from the beginning Who, while dwelling among us, gave full expression to the Father. These three not merely agree with each other, as some have suggested, but are one. There is unity in the trinity. There is a corresponding trinity bearing witness on earth; The Spirit, and the water, and the

91

92 blood. Commentators tell us that the water speaks of the baptism of Christ and the blood speaks of the cross, marking the beginning and end of the Lord’s public ministry. This might be confirmed by the words of verse 6, This is he that came by water and blood. But we may understand the water symbol in another way: being born again is of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). Water in the New Testament speaks of the Word of God, That he might sanctify and cleanse it (the church) with the washing of water by the word. (Eph.5:6). Sanctification is through the application of the Scriptures, the Word. Expiation of sin is through the application of the blood, the Holy Spirit also testifying. Christ is the Word in heaven, and He is the Word applied to the believing soul on earth. If there were no three in one in heaven there could be no three in one on earth. John is careful to tell us that the witness on earth is in accord with a witness in heaven. Revelation 1: 5 Unto him that loved us, and washed (louo) us from our sins in his own blood. “….and loosed us from our sins by his blood” RV “…..and freed us from our sins by his blood.” NRSV Louo is found six times in the Received Text. It is consistently translated “washed” in the Authorized Bible and would make little sense translated otherwise in the first five references. (John 13: 10, Acts 9: 37, 16: 33, Hebrews 10: 22, 2 Peter 2: 22) Modern versions rely on the critical text of Westcott and Hort, and so sins may be loosed but NOT washed in the blood of Christ. The regenerate soul knows what it is to be cleansed from all filthiness. Revelation 1: 12 (see also Exodus 25: 31) ....I saw seven golden candlesticks It is useful to note what John didn’t see. He did not see lamps. He did not see candles. He saw candlesticks. His attention was drawn to the seven sticks designed to support a light producing object. It is Christ who shows light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. (Acts 26: 23) through His golden candlesticks. Our AV translators knew when to use “candle” or “candlestick”, and when to use “lamp” . They never used “lampstand”. They consistently translated luchnos as candle or lamp as required, and luchnia as candlestick. Therefore note the falsity of Darby’s translation, “I saw seven golden lamps”. Another mischievous rendering is found in The Message, “I saw a gold menorah with seven branches.” Wick candles were in use in the first century AD throughout the Roman Empire. There is no reference to oil being used in Rev. 1: 12, either in fact or by implication. The use of the word candlestick in the O.T. is in order also. The Old English word candel is from the Latin candela and means a light or torch. It only later came to refer to a wax candle and is not limited to this meaning. If we are to update every word in the AV Bible we end up with such atrocities as The Message, NKJV, etc. Revelation 2:9 I know thy works... Some of our brethren are teaching, concerning the saints at Smyrna, that the Lord did not know their works because, being under persecution, they had none. Thus the phrase must be omitted from Scripture. On what authority? On the authority of "most ancient translations" one preacher informs us. And they are...? He doesn't know, so we must supply him with his own ammunition against Holy Scripture. The mss that omit the phrase are 1. Alexandrinus, 2. Ephraemi, 3. St Petersburg, 4. #19, 5. #47, 6. Latin Vulgate, 7. Coptic Version, 8. AEthiopic Version, 9. Andreas (6th C.) 10. Primas (6th C.) 11. Bede, The Vaticanus omits the whole of Revelation.

92

93 There they are, all eleven of the so-called authorities. All of them seriously depraved (i.e. multitudes of errors in them) and only nos. 6,7,8, were translations anyway. The rest are Greek mss. And against those eleven the vast majority of mss, including remarkably, the perverted sister of Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus. So why do our own brethren serve up such nonsense? Because they blindly or wilfully follow the apostate critics of Scripture. Those earlier apostates who seized upon the omitting mss to produce their own Greek NT's were Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (who joined the "Brethren" for a while before he totally apostatized). Then followed Alford and Westcott & Hort. Of course those saints at Smyrna had works. James assures us that faith without works is dead. One has told us "It is hardly conceivable that an assembly under such pressure would have much opportunity for Christian works, and so rightly those translations that omit this phrase would be correct". But if there were no works why ever were they being persecuted? Church history tells us that tribulation and persecution have always fanned faith and works. Standing for their truth is a work of God. The Lord had no criticisms to make of the church in Smyrna. It is a pity that our brethren have to. So in the light of Rev. 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life... Those who omit I know thy works show themselves to be unconverted. God knew, when He first gave Scripture through the Spirit's inbreathing into His servants, that Satan would attack it. What a tragedy when Satan uses our own brethren to further his lies. Revelation 5: 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. Modern versions change “us” and “we” to “them” and “they”. There is no sound authority for these changes. The Received Text is well substantiated. The context of Ch. 5 gives no indication of who “they” might be. “Us and we refer to the 24 elders representing the church before the throne.” – J Moorman. Some have thought the AV reading implies that the church will be dwelling upon the earth during the millennium. There is no evidence that the AV translators thought this when they wrote “on” for epi. The view that we shall live for ever on the earth is a Russellite error. The sphere of the reign of the church is indeed on the earth but the preposition epi has a wide meaning and can also be translated “over”, “upon”, “towards” etc. J Heading points out that the case of the following noun determines the meaning of the preposition (-From now to Eternity). Here, earth is genitive, so epi is “on” though sometimes “in the presence of” and hence “over”. Revelation 20: 11,12 And I saw a great white throne....and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God.... The majority of modern versions omit God from this passage. They refer either to “the One” or to “standing before the throne”. Ungodly men fear the prospect of giving account to God so He is removed, and the deity of Christ is denied. He said All authority is given unto me to execute judgment. He is to be the Judge on the great white throne. Jack Moorman supplies the manuscript evidence for “God” (see When the KJV departs from the Majority text. p.108) historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement! Revelation 21: 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it. Most modern versions omit “them which are saved”. Bible critics do not like the idea of whole nations comprised of regenerate men and women. But this is how it will be during the millennial reign of Christ. All entering into that kingdom will be born again, all people bowing the knee to the

93

94 Lord Jesus Christ. It spells doom for the Mohammedan and all\ other false religionists. There is no future for them. Today’s believers, however, are expecting the Rapture The Received Text has these words. Though Erasmus didn’t include them , Moorman points out “the Aldus printed text does. This indicated that evidence came to light as the sixteenth century progressed which convinced the late editors in favour of the readings inclusion.” — When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text; B.F.T. #1617; 1988. Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments. This is changed to 'Blessed are they that wash their robes' in the RV and JND with virtually no textual authority. This rendering is used to support the Romish doctrine of the mass. The AV is not teaching salvation by works here but speaks of the blessedness of those already saved and living a life of obedience to Christ. Compare verses 12:17, 14:12 in Revelation. Also If ye love me, keep my commandments, Jn.14:15. Believers do keep His commandments. They know full well that they are not earning their salvation by their obedience, but demonstrating that they are already saved. The authority for the AV reading of this verse is found in the majority of mss, plus the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions etc. It is even found in the Vatican manuscript! We note that those who hold to the "washing" version are very presumptuous in that they think that they are capable of washing themselves. They ignore the present continuous tense of the verb. They will have to keep on washing, and never know whether they have washed themselves enough to merit salvation. Prof. David Gooding writes, "And finally, in cases like this we can always consult the judgment of godly scholars. J.N.Darby, for instance, had no doubt about the matter. His translation reads 'Blessed are they that wash their robes...' and with him the vast majority of modern scholars would agree." The Word. Issue 41. They would, wouldn't they? Gooding implies that any scholars disagreeing with him cannot be godly.

End

94