Thursday, July 3, 2008

A famine of hearing the word of the LORD? (Pt.1) Amos 8:11

Too strong a title for my topic I wonder? I don't really think so. I think we are in a famine, a famine of the true word of God while we are up to our necks in a sea of false Bibles, the modern versions that were spawned from evil seed in the 19th century and have been multiplying at an astonishing rate over the last decade or so.

For years I've hated the new versions in a visceral sort of way, after having encountered the Gail Riplinger study in the early 90s, but because so many scorned her work (perhaps rightly to some extent) and so many apparently solid Christians and highly trusted pastors defend the new versions, I struggled along accepting them in spite of myself. Specifically I personally struggled along with the New King James just because it claims to be a mere modernization of the English which preserves the essence of the King James, and because it isn't the King James, which I thought I didn't want.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) is particularly popular in churches I've attended. The NIV (New International Version) is usually frowned upon as inferior but I know it is also a very popular Bible in other churches and Bible studies, considered more readable than the KJV. I had to go online to find any KJV-only people since I know none personally. Not real KJV-only people who say it's the only trustworthy Bible, that is: there are those who prefer it but don't claim that it should be preferred, just that they happen to like it themselves, or are used to it or something like that.

I didn't prefer it, I thought I preferred the New King James instead, I thought I wanted an updated King James -- you know, one that preserves the basic language of the King James but modernizes some of its terms, since, after all, language does evolve. I thought I didn't like reading the old English. Not that I have a problem understanding it, just that it's, well, outdated, and shouldn't the church have a Bible in the vernacular? If the NKJV had really been merely an updating I might have been happier with it.

Might, I say, because I'm rethinking all of this now, since I have committed myself to the KJV and am very happy with that decision. I'm now on the verge of throwing myself wholly on the King James and defending it, old English and all, as the only true Bible without any requirement of updating. I now use it exclusively and I've rid myself of other translations I possessed (actually I keep some in a box so I can use them to make comparisons but I don't even like having them around any more). I dropped my NKJV like a hot potato.

It turns out that I love reading my KJV. Having committed myself to it I find it easy reading, clear reading, trustworthy reading. I feel very secure reading it. I know it is true.

In contrast, even though in the past I thought I preferred the NKJV, instead of finding it easy to read I used to fight with it. I did read through all of it but in fits and starts, couldn't really sustain a continuous sequential reading for long. I hated its footnotes that were constantly intruding the information that there are other manuscripts that give a different reading for this or that. I also hated the logo on the front of it, that symbol that's supposed to represent the Trinity. Every time I looked at it I received an ugly sensation from the mere experience of laying eyes on it. It's hard to account for, but I had a loathing of it that was intuitive or visceral like my dislike of all the modern versions, only more intense and focused. Actually, it was spiritual: I now know that it is an occultic symbol, used widely in different forms of witchcraft and satanism. Then as I began to research all this in the last few months I also learned that the NKJV doesn't always follow the text of the KJV as it is claimed it does. Not only do its obnoxious footnotes cast doubt on the text, but in the text itself it makes unnecessary changes to accommodate it to the new versions. No wonder I had problems reading it consistently.

This is just by way of introduction. There's a lot more to come on this subject, as I'm going to be arguing that the true churches should take all their modern Bibles out to an open space, make a huge heap of them and burn them to ash.

13 comments:

ct said...

Agree totally. And expect the dark army of Critical Text scholars and their followers to come around to your blog since they have 'Gail Riplinger' on google alert.

I love Gail Riplinger's zeal. She gets blasted by the dark army because she is born again, and they feel it. If just a small percentage of Christian scholars were half as thorough and dedicated and intelligent as Gail Riplinger Gail wouldn't have needed to perform the service she performed.

ct said...

I should have added those Christian scholars would need to fear God only and not man which is another central quality Gail Riplinger has that outrages her opponents.

Faith said...

Thanks for coming by, CT, much appreciate your comments. Yes, Gail Riplinger's zeal and that enormous amount of work she did. But I won't be depending much on her here I suppose -- I don't want to get too embroiled in the scholarly side of all this, and I hope you're wrong about the "dark army" spying out my little blog TOO soon. I'm barely getting it up and running.

Your profile is a puzzle I must say or is intriguing a better word? Ouspensky AND the Puritans AND born-again AND KJV-only?

ct said...

The Work is a high form of what the Puritans called experimental Calvinism.

It's really just taking both languages - the Work and the Bible - boldly to their on-the-mark, practical level.

With biblical doctrine it's classical Federal Theology. With the Work, you are just playing games until you recognize something that is real and is higher than you, and what created you is real and is higher than you.

You can be the most awake person in hell, and so what. (And of course you can't even truly awaken without having the Spirit.)

For regeneration and justification - salvation itself - one doesn't need the Work, but once one is born again and desires the practical level of the faith (the Puritans just knew it as spiritual warfare) the ideas, practices, and goals of the Work, as especially found in the main works of Ouspensky, are the real thing. I see the Work as a language of the Holy Spirit. No less. Of course there are cults that appropriate the language, but they also appropriate the Bible...

It requires discernment of course, but so does everything. Fear God and not man, it is the beginning of wisdom...

ps- Puritans and Calvinism are a misrepresented in the popular realm as the Work is.

pps- I know Gail Riplinger would deem me a lost cultist (most likely, but that's ok; I understand)...

ct said...

This:

"For regeneration and justification - salvation itself - one doesn't need the Work, but once one is born again and desires the practical level of the faith (the Puritans just knew it as spiritual warfare) the ideas, practices, and goals of the Work, as especially found in the main works of Ouspensky, are the real thing."

should read like this:


"For regeneration and justification - salvation itself - one doesn't need the Work, but once one is born again and desires the practical level of the faith (the Puritans just knew it as spiritual warfare and assaulting heaven) the ideas, practices, and goals of the Work, as especially found in the main works of Ouspensky, are the real thing."

Faith said...

Alas, along with Gail Riplinger I would also deem you a "lost cultist" as you put it. I really don't understand why Ouspensky would seem to have anything whatever to offer a born-again Christian.

Since various forms of last days apostasy are on my agenda for this blog, I may take a closer look at your claims at some point. I skimmed your various blogs but won't have time to pay much attention for a while. Maybe then I can find out more about what you are talking about (and, of course, attempt to dissuade you).

ct said...

For my part I won't try to evangelize anything other than reading the Word of God (AV1611) complete (not that you don't already!)...

Though for deep biblical doctrine you can do worse than also reading Thomas Boston's Human Nature in its Fourfold State...

ct said...

And Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress...

ct said...

"I really don't understand why Ouspensky would seem to have anything whatever to offer a born-again Christian."

Hmm... I'm tempted to respond, but I just said I'd only evangelize the reading of the Word of God!

Suffice to say, my strickly Christian blog doesn't go into anything Fourth Way-ish. Intentionally. I don't like to mix languages. And as I stated above: salvation only requires being regenerated by the Word (the Word of God) and the Spirit (the Holy Spirit Himself); based on the passive and active obedience of Jesus Christ (his life and death on the cross).

And it's true Gurdjieff was the more up front Christian and Ouspensky the more juvenile (regarding the Faith), yet ironically because Ouspensky was more objective in putting down the language of the Work into writing he was more faithful to it and its Christian essence despite himself. But this is neither here nor there because I didn't bring up the subject of Ouspensky...

Also, for the record, the Philokalia (which is not only Eastern Orthodox in origin but universally Christians, John Cassian for instance was of the Celtic Christian tradition), translated into English by Ouspensky's wife, is the Work language through and through, just not at the hardcore practical level the Work language resides at. It's just universal ideas, practices, and goals. Dangerous only for people without the necessary development, but so is most everything. Auto racing for instance...

Faith said...

I like the Puritans, have read Pilgrim's Progress. I think I've read some of Thomas Boston but I'm not sure. Went and found an online copy of Human Nature in its Fourfold State . Sounds very interesting.

Faith said...

I have the Philokalia, and read it years ago, along with other mystical texts, during a phase when I was just saved and thought I was going to become a Catholic, but because most mysticism of that sort is such a mixture of true and false, demonic interference along with the truth, I've given it all up.

ct said...

I think that's true, but it depends on the influence. The third book of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is as orthodox as it gets, and compared to modern day self-identified Calvinists makes Calvin look like a bare foot mystic.

One thing that people involved in 'mystical' practices often - in good faith - mistake for satanic influence is the battle itself between the flesh and the Spirit, when that battle is intentionally aroused (like by doing the practice of presence). You have to provoke your limits to be able then to potentially extend your limits. This though is why not everything is meant for everybody. One needs development prior to some things. People can commit suicide if they are too hollow and let down protective inner shields. You see that in cults. Their personality is methodically stripped away, but their essence is undeveloped. They in effect have no core. So they become zombies, or what have you. Other things. Vessels for any demonic spirit in the air to fill up. Drugs do the exact same thing to people. Not everybody, but you know what I mean. Alcohol also to a degree (a very extreme degree in some cases).

But a Christian born again by the Word and the Spirit is a warrior. A king. A prophet, priest, and king. You need your armor as well (Eph. 6:10-18). You need your Sword (the Word of God) and your shield (your faith). Like I said, you need to develop to a basic level to be able to not be destroy by provoking your limits and dredging up what dark things reside in your inner being. Those dragons though need to have light shined on them and need to be confronted and destroyed.

Prayer is also a major part of the armor of God...

Our strength comes from above, but Jesus said He doesn't want His own burying their talent(s) - silver - in the ground. We have to make efforts. Bunyan depicted this. His great work is wonderful on-the-mark 'visual' doctrine...

The Boston work (Human Nature in its Fourfold State) was once as much a folk classic as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. It is unique in that it is structured in a way that makes it a history of redemption via the states of man: innocence (Adam in the Garden), guilt (Adam and all of mankind after the fall), regeneration, and then glorification. On top of that structure it is pure Federal Theology, which is to say it is pure apostolic biblical doctrine. Because it has that deep underlying structure though Boston was able to reach a level of power in his writing that reminds one of Shakespeare in places. It has a famous section in the middle on the 'mystical union between Christ and believers'...

Faith said...

Well, I must say your thoughts are very interesting, and maybe eventually I'll have the time to get into them more, and will visit your blogs again. I've bookmarked the Thomas Boston book but I think it's going to be a while before I get to that too.