" He that is Perfect in Knowledge is With Thee" (Job 36:4)

To Honor Jesus Christ, Glorify God, Encourage Believers, & Warn All
Est Circa 1992  Changed 09-15-2016
 

This information is offered with the hope that YOU can come to KNOW the Lord personally.


08-11-2016

I had not heard this old news.   My friend Daniel tells me that the Southern Baptist Convention and the Missouri Synod officially rejected the NIV.   Well, upon clarification I became aware that it is the 2011 revision of the NIV that they reject.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-pass-resolution-rejecting-2011-niv-at-annual-convention-51288/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/lutherans-latest-to-reject-new-niv-bible-over-gender-language-81060/

Daniel tells me that the 1984 NIV is no longer available from Zondervan.

https://zusings.com/2013/01/22/the-death-of-the-niv-1984-bible-1984-2012/
from the article --
Who did it?
The NIV 1984 Bible is all but gone. I donít know if itís a homicide or suicide. I donít know if I should phrase that it started falling ill in 2010 and now died at the end of 2012. I donít know if we intentionally or unintentionally let the enemy change an integral translation that fed the souls of many for 28 years. Its traces can still be seen onbiblegateway.com and in popular mobile Bible applications such as Lifechurch.tvís Youversion. You can also snag one from Christianbook.comís NIV 1984 Closeout sale. But itís all but gone from giant online retailers like Amazon.comand when I visited my local brick and mortar Christian book store last week they told me that NIVís United States publisher, Zondervan, ordered them to turn in all 1984 versions in exchange for 2011 equivalents. As one of my beloved translations of the Protestantís Bible I will miss it.

The bottom line here is that the NIV of 1984 was terrible and the 2011 is worse.  If you think I am exaggerating, read on with an open mind. 

Bemoaning the loss of the 1984 NIV is equivalent to bemoaning the loss of the following text as characterized by Dean Burgon.

In reference to the 1881 Revision Committee that gave us the modern English Bibles (including, but not limited to the NIV), Dean Burgon, a contemporary scholar said -

"[the 1881 text of the NIV etc] was the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the age."  (p. 92 True or False)  Click the link to buy the book.

Westcott and Hort... have succeed in producing a text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the evangelists and apostles of our Lord, than any which has appeared since the invention of printing." (p. 92)

"The English, as well as the Greek, of the newly revised version, is hopelessly at fault." (p 103)

"It is, however, the systematic deprivation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me.  For this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source.  Our Revisers stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings which the church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, readings which survive at this time in only a little handful of documents of the MOST DEPRAVED TYPE."


Friend, you have been swindled (if you are using this text).

Read on, dear friend.

End 08-11-2016


09-15-2016
Here is a diagram showing the origins of the King James and all the rest (Post 1881 modern English Bibles)

Once you have the GIF open, click on it (in order to enlarge it).

The GIF is consistent with everything being said on this page concerning:

a) the PRESERVATION of the true Word of God in English in the King James Bible
b) the corruption of the text RE-introduced into the English language in 1881

Note - the NKJV has word substitutions from the corrupt Westcott and Hort text.

You have 2 choices for English Bibles
a) King James Only
b) Westcott and Hort Only (since all modern English Bibles, post 1881, are rooted in the Westcott and Hort text)

Read on, friend, and see if this is not the truth.  We are living in the Laodecian Church Age, in which sound doctrine is not endured. 

Do you want the text:
for which the believers died

or

do you want the corrupted text offered by unbelieving "scholars" (who. by the way, violated their Committee commissioning directions and lied in the process)?

09-15-2016



Luke 1:3   It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

The NIV says "have carefully investigated...from the beginning" not " perfect understanding."  It is obvious that having perfect understanding from the beginning is totally different from gaining understanding by "carefully investiga[ting]."  This is a key point in understanding the entire problem of translations. 

The MEN who produced the NIV and those in authority (in seminary, the pulpit, etc.) who promote the NIV,  believe more in scholarship, "careful investigation", than they do in the providential preservation of the Word by the Spirit of God indwelling in believers.  "The Greek" grammar is viewed by " the wise and the prudent" as more important than the Spirit of God in the role of PRESERVATION (not inspiration) of the Bible.  An unbelieving Greek scholar has NO CHANCE of translating the Bible correctly.  Read Psalms 12:6-7.  More on this later.

The question before us is-   Is "scholarship" or is the Spirit of God the way we know God?

Each believer has the Spirit of God in him.  "He that is PERFECT IN KNOWLEDGE is with thee" (Job 36:4) 

This is why a believer has "perfect understanding of all things from the very first."  The Bible is not learned by scholarly pursuit, but by REVELATION from Jesus Christ.  You can study the Bible until you are blue in the face and you will learn NOTHING of its truths UNLESS Jesus reveals them to you.  Read the following verses to see the truth of revelation.

1 Cor 2:13-14   Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned

Mat 11:27   All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him

Mat 11:25   At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father,  Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes

We see here that revelation is the way to know the things of God.  It is not "scholarship" or "careful investigation" or knowledge of Greek or any other language that will teach us the things of God.

So what do you trust - scholarship or the Spirit of God?




Luke 2:33   And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The NIV says "the child's father and mother..."  I did not realize that Joseph was Jesus' father.  My Bible says Jesus is the Son of God.  This is MOST significant.  If Jesus is Joseph's son, then, Jesus would have been a sinner and, therefore, unable to be our savior.  Because Jesus is God's Son, Jesus was not born with original sin.  The whole Bible and plan of God rests upon Jesus being born of a virgin.

Do you trust someone who says that Joseph is Jesus' father?



John 6:47   Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

"On me" is omitted from the NIV.  Whom have we believed?  




Isaiah 14:12   How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!


"O Lucifer" is omitted.  So, we do not know this is Satan.




Mark 16:9-20  is  omitted  entirely  from the  NIV.




John 3:36   He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

"believeth not" has been changed to say "rejects".   Is this the same?




1 Timothy 3:16   And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

"God" was changed to "he".  In fact, in earlier releases of this text, they worked so hard to get "God" out of the verse that it was translated as "He who" thus rendering the text an INcomplete sentence.   Was " God"  mainfested in the flesh or not?



Zechariah 13:6   And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

"hands" is changed to body.  The "hands" are a reference to crucifixion.


 

Luke 4:4   And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

The NIV OMITS "but by every word of God."  Well, do we live by EVERY WORD of GOD or not?  Since the NIV takes the liberty of dropping "every Word of God", it surely shows that the NIV has a serious problem.  This omission shows exactly what the NIV does to the Word of God: the corrupters of the text upon which it is based did NOT believe in "every word of God."  If they did believe it, they would have kept these words.

Read the following verses to see that tampering with the Word of God is a serious offense:

Rev 22:18-19   For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book  of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 

Every Word of God IS important, not every paraphrased idea of God.




Luke 4:8   And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

The NIV OMITS "Get thee behind me, Satan."  Why?  This has nothing to do with accuracy or clarity.  It has to do with " tak[ing] away from the words" of the Bible.



Luke 23:38   And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING  OF THE JEWS.

The NIV OMITS "in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew ."  Why?  This has nothing to do with accuracy or clarity.  It has to do with "tak[ing] away from the words" of the Bible.



Luke 23:42   And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

The NIV OMITS "Lord."  If the thief does not call him Lord, we can not know that the thief BELIEVES in Jesus.  If the thief does not call him Lord, the thief can not enter the kingdom.  The fact that salvation is not by works, but by faith, is being clearly taught here [the thief will not be coming down from the cross to do good works of any kind - he will be dead].  This thief died as a thief, not as a church member, not as a tither, not as a Sunday school teacher, not as an attendee at mass, not as water baptized; but Jesus said the thief would be with him in paradise.
 
The essential message of this verse is lost when the word " Lord " is omitted.



Matthew 20:22   But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

The NIV OMITS "and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with."

The whole point is to show that the cup is connected to baptism, which is his death on the cross and burial.  Our "baptism " requires us to enter into His death and burial by faith.  His cup is death, his burial is baptism.  We are to " die daily " also.  Please note that all the old testament water crossings: Red Sea, Jordan River, plant life out of water on the third day, etc. are symbolic of death leading to life.  To omit baptism is to lose these teachings.




Matthew 23:14   Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make  long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Omitted entirely.   Why?  Would not be "devour widows' houses ", would it?



Mark 6:11   And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.  Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

The entire last sentence is omitted.



Mark 9:24   And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.

"and said with tears, Lord" is omitted.



Mark 13:14   But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,  spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought  not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

"spoken of by Daniel the prophet" is omitted.  This phrase is the key to understanding all prophecy and the matching of OT and NT.   The last chapter of Daniel has the rest of the story "sealed."   The "seals" are reopened in Revelation 6.



Mark 10:21   Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

"take up the cross" is omitted.  Inexcusable.  Taking up the cross is critical to the believer's progress.



Mark 11:26   But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Omitted entirely.



John 1:14   And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of  the Father,) full of grace and truth.

NIV says "glory of the One and Only?"    Which is right "One and Only" or "only begotten of the Father?"



John 1:18   No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


The NIV is falling over itself here leaving out "the only begotten Son ."   In fact, in an earlier release of a similar text it was "the only begotten God."   I wonder who begot God?



John 1:27   He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me,  whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

"is preferred before me" is omitted.



John 3:13   And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven .

"which is in heaven" is omitted.



John 3:16   For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not     perish, but have everlasting life.

"only begotten" is changed to one and only son.  Since the believers are also His sons, how can Jesus be his "one and only" son?



John 4:42   And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know  that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

"the Christ" is omitted.  "Christ" means Messiah, his title in the old testament.
 


John 9:35   Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

is "son of man" (NIV) equal to the "Son of God?"



John 17:12   While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of  them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

"those that thou gavest me" is omitted.  Liberal theologians have to give men credit everywhere they can.



Acts 2:30   Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

"raise up CHRIST" is omitted.



Acts 8:37   And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Omitted entirely.   This is a statement of saving faith.



Acts 23:9   And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find  no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

"let us not fight against God" is omitted.



Romans 14:10   But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Is it the judgment seat of Christ or not?



1 Cor 10:28   But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed  it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

"unto idols" is omitted and "for the earth is the Lord's " etc is also omitted.



1 Cor 11:24   And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this  do in remembrance of me.

"broken for you" is omitted.  That is, the cross is omitted.




1 Cor 15:47   The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

"the Lord" is omitted.    They just can not quit.



Col 1:14     In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

"through his blood" is omitted.  "Without shedding of blood is no remission."
See Hebrews 9:22.   One can not omit the blood.


2 Tim 3:16   All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"is given" is omitted.  The point here is that the Word does exist.  It is not just some unknowable Greek original that God breathed.




1 Pet 4:14   If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.

from "on their part..." forward, all is omitted.



Rev  14:5   And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

"before the throne of God" is omitted.



Gen 24:67   And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her:  and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Did Isaac "take" Rebekah or did the Justice of the Peace marry them in a ceremony at the Court House?  These guys can not stand plain talk.   The NIV says "marry."




MODERN TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT TRANSLATIONS OF THE KING JAMES TEXT
 
The NIV and ALL modern translations are NOT from the same texts as the King James Bible.  All the modern translations are from the same texts.  The King James Bible is from a DIFFERENT text than ALL these modern translations.  Therefore, the modern translations can not be better translations, more accurate translations, more clear translations, because they are NOT EVEN translations of THE SAME THING.  So, the text upon which the King James Bible is based is the right text or the text upon which ALL the other modern translations is based is the right text, because they are mutually exclusive.   You choose which text is the Word of God.   It is not the ASV versus the RSV or the NIV versus "Good News".  The ASV, NASV, RSV, NIV, Good News, NRSV, New World Translation, are ALL from the SAME texts.  The King James Bible, however, is from a DIFFERENT text than these.   Therefore, it is ALL these other "Bibles" versus the King James.  Even the "New King James" has the text from all these other Bibles substituted in the place of the King James text, thus rendering the New King James to no longer be a King James Bible at all.

All modern translations are from the same DELIBERATELY CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS.  They are not better translations of the same text (as the King James).  They are from DIFFERENT TEXTS.  These texts are the texts REJECTED by  the believers who were murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted by Rome because they KEPT the REAL TEXTS (under the threat of death) so YOU could read them.   By the way, the corrupted texts upon which the modern Bibles are based, DISAGREE
with EACH OTHER in thousands of places, and, yet, they are touted in seminary and in the pulpit as better.

The seminaries have become the "Yea, hath God said?" Society.   Did God really say this?   Did God really say that?
The very words the serpent spoke to Eve.

You never see anyone discussing the fact that Bible X is better than Bible Y.  It is ALWAYS Bible X versus the King James and Bible Y versus the King James.  This is for good reason- all modern English Bibles (post 1881) are from the same manuscripts (except the obviously ludicrous paraphrasings, such as "The Living Bible", etc).  The King James is from a UNIQUE manuscript used to translate no other Bible into English.




IT WAS ILLEGAL to OWN or POSSESS a BIBLE

The papacy burned Tyndale at the stake for translating a Bible into English.  After Wycliffe died, Rome dug up his body and burned his bones because he translated the Bible into English.  (Once a person has the Bible, he is no longer under the authority of  religious institutions, but is under the authority of God Himself.)

Anyone possessing a Bible was murdered by the religious leaders.   Even Martin Luther, a priest of Rome, had to hide from the papacy to translate a Bible into the language of the people, German.   Priests had to read from Bibles that were on chains and only the priests were allowed to read them.

Rome tried to destroy the KING JAMES BIBLE from within the King James committee.  They failed. (Even though they temporarily succeeded in having the Apocrypha added.  When it was later discovered what had happened, the Apocrypha was removed).

So, after failing to stop the King James Bible, they went to plan B: come up with a new translation that will make ROME and OTHER MEN the authority, not the Bible.   One can hardly have a Bible study any more because each man has chosen his own "Bible".  Does this not make US the authority?  We can even  mix and match to find something we "prefer."   As corrupt as the heart is, why would we ever choose that which confronts our pride?



One of the translation criteria in the 1881-1885 Revision Committee, from which all modern translations are derived, was that

"they believed that the Orthodox Christian scribes had altered ... the manuscripts in the interests of orthodoxy ... they ruled out in advance any possibility of the providential preservation of the New Testament text through the usage of believers.  But at the same time they were very zealous to deny that heretics had made any intentional changes in the ... text. "
The King James Version Defended by Edward Hills pub by Eye Opener Publishers.

Furthermore, it is stated in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 5, (Eardman, 1960) pp. 2955-2956 that

"Readings must NOT be chosen which reflect "doctrinal bias."

In other words, a reading declaring that Jesus is God or the blood is the only way must be rejected outright because it is "doctrinally biased."  

These were the criteria used by the Revision Committee of 1881 which brought forth a "revised orginal text" from which a new translation could be rendered in English.

For books etc on this topic see The Dean Burgon Society Website (www.deanburgonsociety.org).  Dean Burgon wrote a book called the Revision Revised which refutes the 1881 text long before the 20th century.

The Revision Committee used 2 texts Sinaiticus (found in 1848 in a trash can in a monastery in the middle east) and Vaticanus (found in the Vatican and it was available at the time of the King James committee, but, they rejected it).

The two men whose theory is the basis for accepting the revised text are Westcott and Hort.
To those who say the position being taken on this webpage is the "King James Only" position, the author asks - would you rather take the " Wescott and Hort Only" position?  If you accept the NIV, that is exactly what you are doing.

To Accept the Wescott and Hort Theory:

You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts.
they believed that the Orthodox Christian scribes had altered ... the manuscripts in the interests of orthodoxy .

You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts.
But at the same time they were very zealous to deny that heretics had made any intentional changes in the ... text.

You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldnít be trusted with the Bible.
This represents all the believers that did receive the "Received Text."  It is THEIR text that Westcott and Hort not only rejected but called "villainous" (Hort in a letter dated 1851, his prejudice against the Received Text was more than evident).

You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.
Those who conducted the inquisition supported the Revised Text of 1881 and hated the King James Bible.

You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.
It was the Received Text (the King James Text) that they possessed.

You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.
The text they had and supported was the 1881 Revised Text of Westcott and Hort.  The Westcott and Hort text was incorporated into the Jesuit Rheims Bible of 1582, rejected by the King James Committee.

You have to believe that the Word of God disappeared for at least 270 years (from at least 1611 until 1881) in spite of what Psalms 12:6-7 says.

Many Bibles were translated after 1881 from the Wescott and Hort text, but, they all went out of print because no one would read them.  Only in the late 20th century after the NIV came out (1978) did there exist any widespread acceptance of the Westcott and Hort text.  

Why was this?  The universities founded to teach the Bible were taken over by non-believers; examples Harvard and Princeton.

The seminaries here and elsewhere started teaching the Westcott and Hort theories as truth. No one became a preacher without passing through seminary and receiving the approval of these "scholars" who trusted men more than the Almighty.  Eventually there were more preachers believing in "Westcott and Hort Only" than believing in the "King James Only."  By the way, many scholars have long since held and shown that the theory of Westcott and Hort is false. (One good example is Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller.  Another is God Only Wrote One Bible by JJ Ray and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. )  However, the professing church continues to follow Westcott and Hort (via the NIV). 

Go on the internet and search for "Westcott and Hort Catholic text" and see what you find.

Go to this link http://www.av1611.org/kjv/logsdon.html and read how Frank Logsdon, the man who wrote the preface to the NASV, came to renounce all attachment to the NASV and all modern English Bibles because they come from the deliberately corrupted Westcott and Hort texts.   The NASV and the NIV came from the same text.  The NIV just takes the same corrupted text and deliberately (see intro to the NIV) does not make a word-by-word translation (another problem also), which in some cases hides the "goofiness" of the underlying text (example- incomplete sentences).


 

THE  BIBLE  is  NOT JUST  INSPIRED,  IT  IS PRESERVED

The Bible is PRESERVED, not just inspired. 

Psalms 12:6-7   The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keepthem, O LORD, thou shalt preservethem from this generation for ever.

In fact, in the NIV, this verse has been changed so that the WORD is not the thing being preserved.  

How was this preservation done?  The spirit of God in the believers REJECTED erroneous texts and ACCEPTED true texts.  Therefore, the believers themselves are "the furnace" in which the text was tried and preserved.  Since the Bible is preserved and THERE is NO GREEK TEXT period, let alone THE Greek text in existence; then, where is the Bible?

The answer (in English) is the King James Bible.  In any other language, it is the Bible translated from the SAME TEXT that the King James was based upon. 

The men in seminary, including the "conservative fundamentalists" do not actually believe there is THE WORD OF GOD in a bound volume.

They believe we have "accurate translations" etc.  They believe we have books that CONTAIN the Word of God.  They do NOT believe there is a book that IS the WORD OF GOD.     

If a trash can contains a diamond ring, the trash can has not become a jewelry store.

I would stick to the King's Bible, if I were you.


Psalms 118:8   It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.


02-09-2006

I corresponded with a reader regarding this topic and the reader discussed my email (and the topic in general) with a pastor he knows.  The pastor responded with an email to the reader (below) and the reader has asked me to comment on it.  Granted, the pastor's response may have been more to the email than to this page.  Given that, assumption, lets proceed.  What follows is the pastor's email.

     After reading over your email I want to share my thoughts with you! I have heard this argument time and again for the better part of 10 to 15 years. I have argued with others along this line of reasoning.

     Let me give you some things to consider. One thing I have learned is whenever  you receive information from someone, always check the attitude of the person who shares it. Becuase the spirit by which they share the information is just as important as the information shared. A critical spirit is very contagious and you MUST beware of it.

    I also am careful to check the credentials of the person who is sharing the information. How long have they been saved? Do they win souls to Christ? Are they submitted to the spiritual authority at a local church? Are they attending a local church? Remember,  it was attitudes such as this that caused Charles Russell and Joseph Smith to start the Jehovah's witness and the Mormons! Now by no means am I saying that one who makes this arguement is a potential cultist but what I am making you aware of is the spirit behind these types of critical remarks that are contagious.

     In my opinion this is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.In this paper the writer asks the question, "What do we trust? scholarhip or the Spirit of God." One of the things that we must always be mindful of is that the path of life is surrounded with ditches on both sides and if you are not careful you will get out of one ditch only  to fall into the ditch on the other side. The reality is that we wouldn't have the understanding we have today about the Bible without scholarship. It is scholarship that has revealed to us the culture, geography, dates, and times about the world of the scriptures. It is professions like archaeology that have allowed to get a better grasp on the life of the Old and New testment saints which in turn allows the average preacher to make the world of the Bible more relevant to the average person in 2006, some 20 century's removed from the Bible. I don't care how close you are with God some things about the Bible will not be understood without scholarship. What is a shekel? How do we know that the book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible? Becuase when the author describes the wealth of Job, he makes no reference to shekels or any type of coin or weight. And we know from scholarship that before they had coins and weights, wealth was measured by the amount of livestock and land one owned.

     Now I know some would argue, "But what does that have to do with the Blood of Jesus and salvation through Christ?" Absolutely nothing! I am simply making an argument that to completely throw away scholarly study would be hyprocritical and stupid! Scholarship and the Spirit of God are both needed to understand the Word of God. Jesus said that we are to love the Lord our God with all of our "MIND, will, and emotions!"  Just because we are saved doesn't mean that the Lord wants us to stop using our brains. 
     I want to respond to the comment the author made in reference to the King James being a transalation of a unique text versus the other Bibles. That statement is only half true. The King James Bible was translated from a different text than the other Bibles but not a unique text.
     Here is the reality! None of the scriptures that we read are the ORIGINAL documents. NONE of them! We do not have the original parchment Luke wrote on when he wrote to Theopilos. We do not have the original letter Paul the apostle wrote to the church in Ephesus. We do not have the original first five books of the Bible written by Moses. We do not have any of the original documents of any of the books of the Bible! So what do we have! We have copies! And since they did not have copier machines back then how do you think they copied these documents. By hand! And if they copied them by hand then common sense says that there was bound to be a mistake in the process of copying! Imagine a letter like 1 corinthians. Write that letter out word for word and then send that letter to someone and ask them to write it word for word and send it to someone. There will be mistakes!

So how do we know if we have an accurate copy? What if one of the people who was making one of the copies fell asleep? What if while they were copying the letter a Roman soldier burst into the house and arrested them in the middle of the letter? (Which is
very possible) I will tell you how! They SCRIBES! That was there job, to check and recheck the copies! Now move forward to the 1600's!

     The SCHOLAR would collect all of the copies made from the past. (And know that this is how all ancient documents are verified for accuracy!) And for the Bible there are between 5000 to 10000 copies, to my knowledge. They take the one that is the oldest and compare it to the others.(Now I am simplifying it of course!) And if the others which are not old say the same thing as the oldest copy than they know that this oldest COPY is the most accurate. Now in 1611 King James and His SCHOLARS had gathered all of the COPIES of the Bible that were currently available becuase in their day their were many different versions of the Bible. Sounds familiar, huh! So the goal of the Kings James crew was to put together one Bible in the language of the common man. So they took all of the different versions and found the most accurate COPIES and then formulated the HOLY BIBLE, authorized by KING JAMES. Can you guess what the response of the people and priests were? They hated it! They fought against it! Sounds familiar, huh
     Fast forward to the 1940's. A little boy is walking and stumbles across a cave and in the cave he discovers the DEAD SEA scrolls. What did these scrolls contains? More COPIES of the Bible! But there was something different about these COPIES! When the SCHOLARS began to study them they discovered that these COPIES were much older than the ones they currently had. Not 10 years older, 50, years older, or even 100 years older. No, these COPIES were between 500 and 1000 years older than the COPIES used to develop the King James Bible! In fact, some of these COPIES were dated back to the same century in which Christ lived! WOW! That means that there were some COPIES of the Bible that were COPIED from the original document that date back to 100 A.D. None of the King James COPIES even came close to that date. The oldest King James COPIES dated back to between 500 and 1000 A.D. So common sense tells us that the closer you are to the original the more accurate your COPY will be.
    One of my favorite shows is COLD CASE! In this show the detectives take an unsolved case and reopen it for further investigation! Invariably, the way they solve most of these cold cases is by finding the person or evidence that is closest to the person who was murdered. The same is true or the Bible! The closer the COPIES are to the original, the more accurate they must be. But that poses another question! If we do not have any of the ORIGINAL documents how do we know if what we have is true? We know based upon the SCHOLARSHIP and FAITH!

     What is awesome about the Bible is that no other document in the WORLD has more COPIES made than those made for the Bible!
 
With all of that said! If I were to look at the evidence and weigh it out, reasoning (GOD said "let us reason together" Isaiah 1 - KJV) as to which Bible is more accurate; my money is on the others!
 
But the bottom line is this, Jesus said, You will know them by their fruit! Since these new Bibles have come on the scene it has not hurt the church but helped it.

Are there some scholars who are not saved? Sure its possible! Do we have to be careful that we do not trust in man versus  trusting in God? Yes! Can we know and undertand the Bible by scholarship alone? No! It is the Spirit that gives life and the flesh profits
nothing!
 
Here endeth the lesson! 
 
Pastor M

First of all, let me say that I am no genius.    Other men have already taken care of this debate for us and have published them in books that you can buy (You just can not buy them at seminary bookstores where they train preachers, even conservative fundamental seminary bookstores.  I am not making this up.)  One such book is True or False? edited by David Otis Fuller.

I highly recommend you get a copy and read it.  It includes the book Which Version? (Authorized or Revised?) by Phillip Mauro, former atheist and the nation's premier patent attorney who prepared the court case in the Scopes Trial defense that William Jennings Bryan delivered.  Which Version? completely and utterly destroys the revised versions (I am not exaggerating).  Phillip Mauro could present and cross examine the "witnesses" (in a court of law) with the best of them.   He presents and examines the EVIDENCE of the "witnesses" (even so-called "oldest" manuscripts) for the revised versions which Westcott and Hort  SECRETLY (always check the attitude of the person who shares it- is what the Pastor said) used to replace the believer-honored text of the Authorized Version, in deliberate direct disobedience (always check the attitude of the person who shares it.- is what the Pastor said ) to the commission they received.  Do not take my word for it; get a copy.  However, I will try my best to break some of this down for you and do it justice.  [By the way, you could get Which Bible? by David Otis Fuller also.  There are plenty of other books as well, all of which have at least one thing in common - you can not find them in 99 out of 100 seminaries.]

Before I do, I want to make one point to you.  According to the NIV, you are not God's son!!!   (Please note: it is the NIV itself that says this, not me.)  Of course, if you are not God's son, you are lost.  In fact, according to the NIV, God has only one son.   How do I know this? Well, of all places, John 3:16.  What does the NIV say?    The NIV says God gave His one and only son!!!  Now, since the book of Job says that the "sonS of God shouted for joy", we know that the NIV is a lie, plain and simple.  These sons of God are mentioned in Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7.  Further, Romans 8:14, Rom 8:19, Phil 2:15, 1 John 3;1; 1 John 3:2 all make reference to the sons of God.  That would be us, folks.  The NIV has changed John 3:16 to a lie!!   God DOES have more than one son.  If I was a Bible believer (which includes believing the providential preservation of the WordS of God in Psalms 12:6-7, unless you are using the NIV, which OMITS the fact that  the WordS of God are preserved), I would close my NIV and never read it again.  I would not need another piece of information.  Dear reader, this mockery of what my Dad taught me as a child is (I am sorry) an outrage and an offense (as my 8th grade English teacher said) up with which I will not put.  The Word of God is not to be taken lightly (Rev 22:19) and if one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the book of life, unless the reader is using the NIV, in which case I guess it is OK.  Of course, the correct rendering is His only begotten son.  Of course, Jesus is the only son of God begotten of a woman.   "One and only" is just plain silly.  Something is going on here. The NIV has lots of problems similar to this and we shall see why here shortly.  Another example is calling Joseph the Father of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:33). 

Let's examine what the pastor has said-
I also am careful to check the credentials of the person who is sharing the information. How long have they been saved? Do they win souls to Christ? Are they submitted to the spiritual authority at a local church? Are they attending a local church? Remember,  it was attitudes such as this that caused Charles Russell and Joseph Smith to start the Jehovah's witness and the Mormons! Now by no means am I saying that one who makes this arguement is a potential cultist but what I am making you aware of is the spirit behind these types of critical remarks that are contagious.

One at a time-
How long have they been saved?   Well, just how long does it take?  5 years?  10 years?   What this has to do with the subject at hand is a mystery to me.

Do they win souls to Christ?
I have never won a single soul to Christ.  Christ did it Himself.

Are they subject to the spiritual authority at a local church?
I thought that the  "
the original letter Paul the apostle wrote to the church in Ephesus" was written to the local church so that they would have an authority.  So, should a man be subject to local churches or should a man be subject to the original letter Paul wrote?  Since according to the pastor, We do not have any of the original documents of any of the books of the Bible! So what do we have! We have copies! And since they did not have copier machines back then how do you think they copied these documents. By hand! And if they copied them by hand then common sense says that there was bound to be a mistake in the process of copying!  Then, we must not have any written authority at all which we can safely follow.   Consequently, we are compelled to follow the authority of churches and the pastors who teach such things.  I guess the Pope was right after all when he sought to kill those who first translated the Bible (for example) into English, Wycliffe and Tyndale because, after all, Wycliffe and Tyndale only had copies that could not have been correct .  Why did the Pope do this?  Simply put, he wanted his church to be the authority, not the Bible.  One of the main points of the Protestant reformation was sola scriptura - the absolute authority of the Bible, which is a translation of a copy in a bound volume I am holding in my hand.  The words of the Lord are pure words: ...  thou shall keep them, O LORD, that shalt preserve them from this generation forever (Psa 12:6-7).  Unless you are using the NIV, which changes the meaning of this verse, you can absolutely rely on the King James Bible because God said He would preserve His WordS.  Yes, those copies used to create the Bible were reliable and they have been used to preserve God's Words just as He promised.   The implications of Psalms 12:6-7 are that there is NO WAY God's Word could have been lost to the body of believers from 400 AD until 1881 AD (the year of the revised version, from which the NIV is derived ).  Note - the purpose of the revision committee was to restore the 4th century texts, not the "originals".   This objective is what Westcott and Hort, who ran the committee, said was the objective.   More on this later.

In my opinion this is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.In this paper the writer asks the question, "What do we trust? scholarhip or the Spirit of God." I don't care how close you are with God some things about the Bible will not be understood without scholarship. What is a shekel? How do we know that the book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible?

I don't care how close you are to scholars, "do you have change for a shekel?"  is not what we are talking about.  I am not talking about shekels, how old the book of Job is, geography, archaeology, dates, etc. I am talking about the MEN who HANDLE the Word of God itself (and whether or not these men actually BELIEVE the Word of God).

How many scholars, who know how old the book of Job is, understand what the book of Job means?  Why might this be important?  For one thing, the NIV (in its preface) states that it is not a word-for-word translation.  So, the translators were required to assume what it meant so they could "translate" it.  For another, they had to have a reason to select the underlying text which was to be translated.   As we will see shortly, the reason was not the "oldest manuscript."

Who do you trust - the scholarship of men or the Spirit of God when it comes to UNDERSTANDING the difference between the Word of God and the Word of Men? Since the Bible says that the natural man CAN NOT KNOW the things of Godhow does one differentiate between two texts that purport to be the Word of  God (if they differ)
The "oldest" manuscripts?  More on this later.

The pastor is right about the ATTITUDE being important.  Read the Dedicatory Epistle to the King James Bible and see their attitude compared to the attitude of the vast majority of preachers and (especially) the seminarians.  The dedicatory epistle can be found here. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvpref.htm

But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.

So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.

One either SUBMITS to the Word of God or he CORRECTS the Word of God
.  You will never find me correcting the Word of God.  Saying such ludicrous things as - This is more accurate here or this is clearer there.  Having been through the DISTRESS of the Almighty and understanding the necessity of the revelation of Jesus Christ, I offer this question, how could an unbroken man even understand what is true?  So, if he can not understand what is true (which he absolutely can not do), then, how can he say that such and such is clearer? This is comical.  Read Proverbs 1:23.  Note the ORDER of events.  I do not see any Lockman Foundation scholars following this path (the Lockman foundation sponsored the NIV).

A corollary to this is - can a brilliant scholar who is LOST recognize and preserve the true Word of God?  The answer to this question is apparent to those who have read the Bible.

"I will pour out my spirit...I will make known my words unto you..."  ----  totally the work of the Lord, not men and not scholarship.  A man could study the King James Bible all day long every day of his life and if the Lord did not teach the man, the man would learn nothing of the Lord..

So, when I hear men praising other men (modern scholars), I know they have a problem because the Lord has shown me in His Word that this is so.  If someone wants to follow men to the Lockman Foundation, the seminary, or any other place, let them.  I am going to follow the Bible which is clearly translated from copies that the Lord Himself preserved.  I know this because He said so in His book.

     I want to respond to the comment the author made in reference to the King James being a transalation of a unique text versus the other Bibles. That statement is only half true. The King James Bible was translated from a different text than the other Bibles but not a unique text.

I am at a loss as to what the pastor means.   The revision committee deliberately sought to use a text different from the King James Text.  All modern translations in English (post 1881), except obvious junk like the "Dead Bible" (as I refer to it), are translated from the revision committee text.  No modern English translation is translated from the same text as the King James.  Everyone knows this and therefore everyone concedes that the King James Text is different.  According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary unique means
being without a like or equal.  Two things that are different are not equal.   If there are 4 things, 3 alike and 1 different; the one is unique.  Since all the modern Bibles (post 1881) are from the same text (revised text) and the King James is from a different text (Textus Receptus), then, the King James is a unique text. 

     Here is the reality! None of the scriptures that we read are the ORIGINAL documents. NONE of them! We do not have the original parchment Luke wrote on when he wrote to Theopilos. We do not have the original letter Paul the apostle wrote to the church in Ephesus. We do not have the original first five books of the Bible written by Moses. We do not have any of the original documents of any of the books of the Bible! So what do we have! We have copies! And since they did not have copier machines back then how do you think they copied these documents. By hand! And if they copied them by hand then common sense says that there was bound to be a mistake in the process of copying! Imagine a letter like 1 corinthians. Write that letter out word for word and then send that letter to someone and ask them to write it word for word and send it to someone. There will be mistakes!

Are we to assume from this that the pastor believes the Bible is full of mistakes?

So how do we know if we have an accurate copy? What if one of the people who was making one of the copies fell asleep? What if while they were copying the letter a Roman soldier burst into the house and arrested them in the middle of the letter? (Which is
very possible) I will tell you how! They SCRIBES! That was there job, to check and recheck the copies! Now move forward to the 1600's!

Perhaps, the pastor is telling us that the scribes did preserve the copies.  This brings up a major issue.  Which scribes?  Were there any scribes that corrupted the texts?  Were there scribes who preserved the true text?  By the way, what was the first thing that Satan said in the Bible?  Yeah, hath God said?

Satan questioned what God had said and, in so doing, he changed what God said by adding one word.  Yeah, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  Satan was the first Bible reviser.   So, my question is, would there not have been "scribes" who revised the originals because these scribes were under the influence of Satan?  Would these copies not have been close to the "originals" and would they not have been among the "oldest"?  Satan knows the Word of God and that the Word is the instrument of God.  Would Satan not seek to corrupt it as soon as he got his hands on it to thwart the plans of God?  Absolutely.  And, as we shall see, that is exactly what he did.  It is these corrupted copies closest to the "originals" and the "oldest" manuscripts that were put back into the 1881 revised text.  Why were some of these deliberately corrupted texts among the "oldest?", i.e., why did they survive?   The answer is simple - when a scribe finished copying from his master, he usually destroyed it.  The reason these corrupted manuscripts survived is that the true believers had nothing to do with them and so they survived.  Had they been read until they fell apart (as was the case with hungry believers handling the true Word of God) or had they been used as a master to generate what became the traditional text, they would not have survived.  More on the topic of "oldest" later.

The SCHOLAR would collect all of the copies made from the past. (And know that this is how all ancient documents are verified
for accuracy!) And for the Bible there are between 5000 to 10000 copies, to my knowledge. They take the one that is the oldest and compare it to the others.(Now I am simplifying it of course!) And if the others which are not old say the same thing as the
oldest copy than they know that this oldest COPY is the most accurate. Now in 1611 King James and His SCHOLARS had
gathered all of the COPIES of the Bible that were currently available becuase in their day their were many different versions of the Bible. Sounds familiar, huh! So the goal of the Kings James crew was to put together one Bible in the language of the common man. So they took all of the different versions and found the most accurate COPIES and then formulated the HOLY BIBLE,
authorized by KING JAMES. Can you guess what the response of the people and priests were? They hated it! They fought against it! Sounds familiar, huh

Two questions - what was the attitude of the King James "scholars" (in contrast with the 1881 revisers' attitudes) and are we to infer from the pastor's assertion that "the people and priests hated it" that, since some people despise the NIV, the net result (fruit) of the NIV will be or has been the same as the King James or that there is some other inference we are to draw?  I agree with the pastor that the NIV has been widely adopted by many after initial poor acceptance, but, this (in and of itself) tells us nothing about the nature of either Bible.  My question to anyone is this - during the Laodecian Church Age, which is more likely - the generally increasing acceptance of good doctrine or the
generally increasing acceptance of bad doctrine?  We are living in the Laodecian Church Age, the last Church Age, whose attributes are such that many will be spewed into the tribulation, Revelation 3:16.  Those spewed into the tribulation represent the professing church of the Laodecian Age and they are more inclined to accept false doctrine than earlier Church Ages.

A few facts-

In reference to the 1881 Revision Committee that gave us the modern English Bibles, Dean Burgon, a contemporary scholar said -

"(it) was the most astonishing, as well as the most calamitous literary blunder of the age."  (p. 92 True or False)

Westcott and Hort... have succeed in producing a text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the evangelists and apostles of our Lord, than any which has appeared since the invention of printing." (p. 92)

"The English, as well as the the Greek, of the newly revised version, is hopelessly at fault." (p 103)

"It is, however, the systematic deprivation of the underlying Greek which does so grievously offend me.  For this is nothing else but a poisoning of the River of Life at its sacred source.  Our Revisers stand convicted of having deliberately rejected the words of inspiration in every page, and of having substituted for them fabricated readings which the church has long since refused to acknowledge, or else has rejected with abhorrence, readings which survive at this time in only a little handful of documents of the MOST DEPRAVED TYPE."

Contrast this with the fact that out of 1000 manuscripts, 995 support the traditional texts.

Remember that the goal of the 1881 revisers was to render the 4th century text, according to their own words.  Given that, listen to this description of the King James Text-
It is admitted on all hands that the Text used as the basis of the Authorized Version [King James] correctly represents a Text known to have been widely (if not everywhere) in use as early as the 2nd century (for the Peschitta and Old Latin versions, corroborated by patristic quotations afford ample proof of that).  (p 82)

...while Drs. Westcott and Hort admit that our Textus Receptus, in practically the form in which we now have it, existed in and previous to the fourth century, and that it was "dominant" in Syria and elsewhere, (p 112)
they assert that it was "conflated", evidence for which assertion they offer ZERO evidence.  However, they obviously did not believe their own "oldest" manuscript  junk.

When the revisers said they selected the "oldest" manuscripts, they lied.  There are plenty of manuscripts as old as or older than Vaticanus and Siniaticus (the 2 used by the revisers).  However, if any of these "oldest" manuscripts agreed with the received text (the King James Text), they automatically rejected them.   Why?  Because Westcott and Hort hated the traditional text and were already biased against it.  They actually sneaked the corrupted text past  the revisers and only afterwards was their deed revealed.  On the other hand, when they found a reading that DISAGREED with the received text, even if it was known to be a later text, they accepted the later text.  So much for all the lying about "oldest manuscripts."  Why did they do this?  Because the revisers believed the received text had been corrupted in the interest of orthodoxy and they rejected any notion that the Vaticanus and Siniaticus had been corrupted by unbelievers.  In other words, to simplify, according to Westcott and Hort, the "good guys" had corrupted the Bible (the KJV text) to teach Jesus was God, and NO bad guys had ever corrupted the revised text
If you believe that, I have some property I want to sell you.

Regarding the revised text- for there are sufficient evidences, both internal an external, to warrant the conclusion that these two Codices [Vaticanus and Siniaticus] are very closely related, that they are, in fact, copies of the same original, itself a very corrupt transcript of the New Testament. ( p 82)

I believe I'll stop here.

End 02-09-2006


02-12-2006

Since I posted the above I received emails from some who attacked King James (or his translators) on the basis of their sins.  I received other emails saying "neither is perfect" or expressions with similar meanings.

To these I say that if you continue your arguments until their "logical" conclusion you will, alas, arrive at the "fact" that there is no such thing as the Word of God in a bound volume on the planet.  You will be left with some unknowable, non-existent, "original autographs" or the authority of some man (including self), God forbid.

I have to ask - the faith of which believers is it your design to undermine?  Just like the revisers of 1881, who chose to molest the Bible (to use Burgon's description) by inserting in the margins such statements as "ancient authorities say", the "best manuscripts say", "the oldest manuscripts say" [which adds absolutely nothing, except doubt], is it your desire to join the Ye
a- Hath-God-Said? Society of scholars?  If you continue down this path, that is where you will (by logical necessity) end.

As to the sins of King James or the AV committee members, I have this to say - How would the Almighty God allow a murderer and an adulterer to WRITE the original autographs of the Book of Psalms?  (I speak as the natural man would in asking such a question because they both are the same question.)  How in the world could a murderer and an adulterer
(whose SIN, singular, is ever before [him]) be a man after God's own heart ?

I have been asked to write articles to reprove all kinds of sins; I have written the reproof of the only two sins I am going to discuss - PRIDE and UNBELIEF.   Once one starts down this path of pointing out the specific sins of someone else, inevitably, you will end in the sin of pride.  It is up to the Almighty to judge His people.  I know He will because He did it with me and the joy of it is beyond my ability to describe.  being judged by the Lord is a sure sign that you are His. 

Praise the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Forever More!!!  He ONLY is my Rock and my Salvation, my strength, my high tower, my deliverer!!  Praise His Name all ye peoples, praise ye Him ye moon and stars and let all the Sons of God praise His name!!  He is an ETERNAL King and the Lord of Hosts is His name and He is from EVERLASTING to EVERLASTING - THOU (Jesus Christ) ART GOD!!!  His name is great and greatly to be praised.  Great are His works and wonderful are His statutes.  Bless His name forever. 

Psalms 138:2   I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for
thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Because the Lord PRESERVED His WordS according to His promise in Psalms 12:6-7 and because He left an OVERWHELMING number of COPIES of manuscripts in far and wide locations, He made it possible to know and preserve the True Word of God and he made any impostor stand out as a phony (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, The Revised Text from which modernism spread into the Laodecian Church).   If you want a term to describe the Yea-Hath-God-Said? Society it is UNBELIEVING Scholarship - they just plain do not believe Psalms 12:6-7.  It is impossible for the Word of God to have been lost to the world of believers from 400AD until 1881.  The entire Enlightment, Protestant Reformation, the emergence from the Dark Ages, and the countless millions saved all were without the true word of God (if you believe their theory).  It would require one to believe that the Lord conducted a colossal hoax on His people and lied in the process.

God said He would write His law in the fleshly tablets of the believing heart.  It is from thence that RECOGNITION of the WordS of God may spring.  Only from such a heart can spring a phrase like that of the King James Committee -

we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people

The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psa 34:18)

End 02-12-2006




How is a Man Saved?

Home Page




Please e-mail us with questions or comments today.   You can RELY TOTALLY on the Word of God as found in the King James Bible.  


 Jesus-is-the-Way
John 14:6
 
"I am the way, the truth, and the life" - Jesus Christ