A weary word on Christian infighting

There seems to be an escalation of arguments between some Christian ministries these days that takes up an awful lot of time.  I've not been following most of it lately but first became aware of it because of the attacks on Jonathan Cahn over his book The Harbinger which I defended here for many months.  The last thing I posted on that subject was an interview of Cahn by Chris Rosebrough, someone I'd never heard of to that point.  I thought he did a very fair job of interviewing Cahn and bringing out the unfairness of the criticisms against him.  The ministries that attacked Cahn are very respectable ministries you don't really want to criticize in turn, but the attacks were so unfair you have to point out the unfairness.  And I personally believe you have to name the ministries or otherwise all you do is create confusion.

Then I more or less backed away from the controversies.  But it was Chris Rosebrough who hosted the debate between James White and Chris Pinto on his radio show on Wednesday, and looking up more on the debate at You Tube I found a program he did a couple months ago in which he was taking Pinto to task for slandering a friend of his, asking that Pinto apologize.

I don't want to get into all THIS either, but I listened to the first part of that radio show and felt that now Chris Rosebrough is the one being unfair.   He goes on at great length explaining how Chris Pinto had committed this sin of slander and I started getting impatient to hear the evidence.  Then when he played the audio in question it seemed to me he was completely misjudging Pinto's point.  I wish I had access to Pinto's whole show now but I don't, so this is based just on that part I heard.  Pinto described Rosebrough's friend as someone who had gone to Harvard Divinity School and then described Harvard Divinity School as where a certain professor who promoted Christian homosexuality had taught.  Rosebrough took that as insinuating that his friend was gay or supported gay Christianity but all Pinto was saying was that Harvard Divinity School is really not the kind of institution where a professing Christian should seek his education;  it's not the sort of institution where you could expect to get solid Biblical teaching.  I heard nothing more than that.  According to Rosebrough Pinto edited that part of the program afterward, but I didn't hear anything in it along the lines Rosebrough was suggesting anyway.  I couldn't listen past the first few minutes because Rosebrough was going on and on with this misjudgment and I got tired of it, so I hope I didn't miss something I needed to hear.

And now there is the debate between Pinto and White which has required me to be more aware than usual of how heated the Bible controversies can get.  And in this case Pinto is being accused quite offhandedly of being a conspiracy thinker.  As if he was jumping to conclusions from a lack of evidence, which is what that usually means, but in fact the conclusion of conspiracy is clearly based on the facts he's been researching.

I wish I could say Pinto had won the debate.  He did a very nice job of presenting his thinking and his research, but I have to conclude, as I titled my blog post on it at the Bible blog, that Truth lost the debate.  Truth just doesn't win debates these days.  That's just the way it is.  People who win debates are glib and scholarly, they demand certainty and don't have much patience with the kind of probing and inconclusiveness Pinto's research requires.   I concluded that the important issues involving the Bible versions come down to spiritual discernment and I agree with that more and more as I think about it.  That's a virtue that isn't usually evident in scholarly debate.  It isn't evident, period, in the defenders of the Westcott and Hort Greek texts or anything having to do with textual criticism or the modern Bibles.

Some Warnings Against the Bogus Bibles, Against the Bogus "health care plan," and Against the Bogus "Palestinian cause" plus Update on Jesuits

11/20 UPDATE:

Chris Pinto's radio show today is about Jesuit influence, particularly in Scotland. He quotes from J A Wylie's book on the history of Protestantism (It's listed at my Catholicism blog).   In passing he mentions a book about Vatican influence in Nazi Germany.  The book is available but so is this video Interview with John Cornwell about his book, Hitler's Pope.

=============================

THE GREAT BIBLE HOAX:

After writing yesterday's post for the Bible Hoax blog I went back and listened again to Chris Pinto's radio show The Burning of the Bibles, which I'd linked in the previous post at that blog, because I remembered that it gives support to some of the claims I was making about Westcott and Hort's Bible revision of 1881.  It does, and it's an excellent outline of the whole Bible debacle that was hatched in the 19th century and has been creating chaos ever since, causing the English Bible to be brought into doubt.  Yes we're talking conspiracy.  The revision of 1881 was more of an attempt to destroy the King James Bible by people under the influence of the Vatican than it was any kind of legitimate revision.  This is what Chris Pinto has been repeatedly documenting for some time, and this particular radio show does a very nice job of outlining the whole story.

I started that blog based on the writings of John Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort's who saw their revision as an indefensible undermining of the Bible, which he called "poisoning the river of life," and wrote a series of critiques of the revision that became the monumental book The Revision Revised.   Although Burgon's name has been used by a King-James-Only organization, The Dean Burgon Society,  Burgon did not give King-James-Only arguments.  His effort was entirely to show the scholarly deficiencies of the 1881 revision, both in their substitution of corrupted Greek manuscripts for those underlying the King James, and in their mangling of the English translation itself by thousands of unnecessary changes, both against the instructions that had been given to the revising committee. 

What Chris Pinto does is show that there were very likely ulterior motives to their mutilation of the King James Bible, specifically in the use of the corrupted Greek manuscripts, and that these motives were most likely fostered under the influence of the Vatican.  The Vatican of course had, and still has, strong motives to bring down the Reformation, which had deposed it from its former power in Europe, of which the King James Bible was the crown jewel.

This particular radio show was inspired by an incident in which Catholic priests in America burned the King James Bible in the year 1834, as reported by the Protestant writer John Dowling, but Pinto doesn't get to that incident until late in the show because he gets sidetracked by the fact that the criticisms of the King James used by Catholic apologists as reported by Dowling are the same as those unwittingly given by supposedly Protestant Bible textual critics today.

The title of Dowling's book is The Burning of the Bibles:  Defense of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures Against the Attacks of Popish Apologists for the Champlain Bible Burners,  and Pinto says that the arguments Dowling describes as those of the Catholic apologists for the burning of the Bibles

...are arguments that are nearly identical to your textual critics in modern times, who don't realize that many of their arguments come from the Roman Catholic Church ...  even though these guys are professing Protestant evangelical, sometimes neo-Reformed...  the arguments they make about the Bible and its history...come from Roman Catholic apologists, and Jesuits and rationalists...who have made these arguments for hundreds of years.  And of course I believe that because Higher Criticism gained the upper hand in the 19th century, largely as a result of events surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and because of the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, this is what led to the full-blown exploitation of unbelieving Higher Criticism in our colleges and universities...  and as a direct result of the Higher Critical arguments gaining the upper hand, what immediately happened after was the beginning of modern-day ecumenism...

This gets him into a discussion of how the revising committee of 1881 introduced the corrupted Greek manuscripts, but especially how their arguments came to dominate today's Bible scholarship. He says we have to understand that

...Westcott, Hort, Scrivener, all of these guys, were Anglo-Catholics... That's why they invited Cardinal John Henry Newman, who was the leader of the Oxford Movement, to come and sit on the committee with them.... Cardinal Newman, his entire purpose was to reclaim England for Rome.

The plot goes on thickening from there, through the work of Phillip Schaff who did the American version of the English revision, how Schaff kissed the feet of the Pope and how he was a keynote speaker at the ecumenical Parliament of World Religions of 1893 which included Buddhists and the satanic Theosophists Blavatsky and Annie Besant among the bogus "Christians" and so on and so forth. This is all within the first six minutes of the radio show, and it goes on from there until he finally gets back to Dowling's book in the middle of the second half of the show.   Listen and weep.  That's what happens to me when I hear this stuff.

What can I say.  I pray and hope that Chris Pinto's work might change the minds of some of those Protestant Christian spokesmen today who are committed to the modern Bible versions.  I pray for James White and Daniel Wallace and John MacArthur who are very influential Reformed Christian leaders who are unwittingly supporting these Vatican-inspired Bibles that are contributing to the destruction of Protestant Christendom.  Why?  Because they have put their trust in Bible scholars, some of whom were unbelievers, such as Bruce Metzger, and Jesuits.  If there is a lesson here from the Bible itself, it must be the many warnings to us to avoid the "wisdom of this world."  It's just another of the devil's strongholds we are to bring down through the spiritual weapons we have been given in the Word itself.

=============================
So I wanted to point back to that radio show today, hoping hoping hoping my voice joined with Chris Pinto's and others who are saying the same things might help turn the tide against the Antichrist Vatican's plots -- if it might by God's providence reach some open ears.

But Protestant Christendom is so far gone these days, so completely under God's judgment, so mutilated and dying, I wonder how much hope is there that the Lord might have mercy on us at this late hour.

There are so many fronts on which we need that mercy these days, the Bible versions are just one of them. 

=============================

THE PLANNED OBAMACARE TRAIN WRECK

I just heard a radio show Jan Markell hosted on Saturday, on two separate topics, Obamacare and Israel that constitute two such fronts, that was something like being punched twice in the stomach:  one, the second, was on The Planned Train Wreck of Obamacare, which suggests that this was never a legitimate health care plan, which many of us knew anyway, but a designed attack on American capitalism.

There's a whole lot that needs to be said about how capitalism is a specifically PROTESTANT system, that brought about the unprecedented prosperity of Protestant America, and how socialism is the economic system of the Vatican, whose work can be seen in the miserable poverty of Catholic nations.  This wasn't part of Jan Markell's show, but it's necessary background.  All this stuff was new to me over the last year, and I've hardly even touched on it in my blogs.  All I'm going to do here is say this much and hope others who are still in the dark about these things, as I was, will do the research.  I've listed many sources on such things at my Catholicism blog.  Check out the book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, which is available at The Trinity Foundation for some eye-opening revelations about Catholic economics.

THE EVANGELICAL POLITICAL ABANDONMENT OF ISRAEL

The second punch in the stomach from Jan Markell's weekend radio show was on the fact that the growth of Reformed theology in American churches has contributed to the political abandonment of Israel in evangelical circles, in favor of supporting the "Palestinian" cause against Israel.  This is apparently due to the Reformed theology that says the Church has replaced Israel in God's plan, which I've discussed here before as in my opinion a misunderstanding of what scripture teaches.  I believe the Church is the fulfillment of God's plan that He began with believing Israel, not a replacement but a fulfillment, a continuation.  It isn't the result of God's rejection of Israel but the completion of His plan through the coming of the promised Messiah, which goes back to Eden.  Apparently some Reformed or Covenant theology sees it as a substitution instead of a fulfillment.  In either case it is true that earthly Israel is no longer God's people as only BELIEVING Israel is God's people and that's the Church. 

HOWEVER, we're also talking about spiritual Israel versus earthly Israel (or "Jacob") as I've looked at it -- and I could be wrong about this way of looking at it but it makes sense of some things for me.   Looking at it this way, there is no "replacement" of Israel at all.  Earthly Israel today is the playing out of Old Testament teaching as misunderstood by unbelieving Jews, but it makes no sense to me to take the Reformed view that God has utterly abandoned them, let alone to treat them as some kind of specially evil earthly nation.  God hasn't abandoned a single earthly nation on this planet, why would He abandon the Jews who represent His firstborn chosen people?  If only for the honor of His name among the peoples God is not going to abandon even apostate earthly Israel. 

We know from scripture that a time will come when a huge number of Jews will recognize their true Messiah, and we also know that Jesus is going to return to the Mount of Olives.  God hasn't abandoned that piece of real estate or the Jewish people even in their apostate condition.  And how can it be denied that they are THERE, on that land that God originally gave Abraham?  That couldn't happen without God's willing it.  Yes, that land was a type of a heavenly Promised Land that Abraham himself looked to, as so much of the Old Testament gives us types that point to Christ and our redemption through Him, but in earthly terms it still represents that promise God gave to him. 

AND historically speaking God has clearly supported the nation of Israel miraculously against many of the attacks by her Arab neighbors since she became a nation in 1948.  There is no doubt in my mind that Israel, for all her unbelief, is still under God's protection and still figures in God's plan for the finale of Planet Earth.  AT THE SAME TIME there is also no doubt in my mind that earthly Israel is under God's judgment for their apostasy and rejection of their Messiah, which can certainly be seen in their being surrounded by implacable enemies.  Only God could juggle these two facts but that's what He's doing.

Theologically it makes no sense to treat Israel as if it doesn't exist or isn't in fact back on that particular piece of land given to them, but it's also political and historical blindness to take up the "Palestinian" cause against Israel.  Surely the Palestinians are a miserable people we need to pray for, but they are the pawns of their Israel-hating leaders who invented the whole idea of a "Palestinian people" in the first place to be a thorn in the side of Israel. 

There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.  The area known as Palestine was almost barren of population when the Jews began to settle it.  It had no official name, it had no government, it had no "people."  Mark Twain wrote a description of the land as a wilderness on his visit there in the late 19th century.  The accusation that the Jews stole the land from a "Palestinian people" is just bogus.  They bought whatever land was owned by the few who owned it, but the over five million people who today take the name of "Palestinians" are the descendants of citizens of all the surrounding Arab nations who originally came to the area to work for the Jews as their nation was being built up.  When the first Arab attack on Israel was planned, the Arabs living in Israel were warned to flee the country to protect themselves.  They became the "Palestinian" refugees whose refugee status was then blamed on Israel although it came about through the Arab warning of the imminent attack.

Over the decades attempts to bring peace to the region between Israel and the "Palestinians" have included many generous concessions by Israel to form a Palestinian State, that were nevertheless rejected by the "Palestinians," over and over and over, and yet the reason for this continues to go unrecognized by most of the world:  the refusal to accept any compromise whatever with the nation the Arabs want not to exist at all, and which their maps show as not existing at all.  There is NO peace plan that will ever work for this reason.   America has been right all these decades to support Israel, but the ridiculous "peace plans" we've tried to foist on the region show a basic blindness to the true political situation.

The "Palestinian" cause has been invented entirely as a ruse to give Israel a bad reputation in the eyes of the world and ultimately to eliminate the nation from the planet altogether as many Arab leaders have so often made clear is their desire.   There is a book which details this plot through historical facts and quotes that is available at Amazon,  Philistine: The Great Deception, by Ramon Bennett, which I got from the ministry of The Berean Call back before 9/11. 

Whatever your theology, the historical facts ought to tell you that supporting the "Palestinian cause" which is founded on devious Arab plots against Israel, is not the side to be on.

=============================
We need a new Protestant Reformation.    

DOCTRINES OF DEMONS IN TODAY'S CHURCH

I'm inspired to collect my usual list of the Doctrines of Demons I believe the true Church has been laboring under for a long time, that we need to repent of, that we need to correct.  Yes, this is just my own opinion, but I can muster quite a bit of evidence and have done so on many of my blogs. 

BARE-HEADED LADIES IN THE CHURCH
BOGUS BIBLES ACCEPTED AS GENUINE
ROMANISM ACCEPTED AS CHRISTIAN

1)  The denial of the head covering for women that I blog about at Hidden Glory.  I'm putting this first because although it may be the least of the deceptions in the Church, I keep having the suspicion it's not, that it's the toe in the doorway that has allowed others to push their way in.  This one has seduced many of the best preachers of our time.  Women sit bare headed in the vast majority of true Bible-believing Christian assemblies these days, an affront to God's Creation Order, an affront to the Glory of God, as expressed in verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 11:

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.

Therefore her head should be covered in the worship service, so that not man's glory but God's glory may be on display.  Isn't it a clue that after two millennia of Christian understanding of Paul as requiring women to cover our heads, we stopped doing this about the middle of the twentieth century when feminism was taking off?

2)  The acceptance of the Bible versions that have come down from the Revision of 1881.   I've been coming to think of this as the devil's biggest triumph against the Church these days, getting true believers to accept his own clever undermining of the English Bible, from the assault on it by Westcott and Hort in 1881 through all of today's increasingly worse "translations." 

Westcott and Hort built their abomination of a "revision" on their preferred but bogus Greek manuscripts, against the instructions given to the revising committee which they came to dominate; along with an inexcusable mangling of the English in 36 thousand unnecessary changes, also against the instructions.  All to destroy the King James which they hated.  Well, they succeeded.  Now modern preachers have accepted their frauds as genuine, even to impugning the King James and its Textus Receptus as the erroneous Bible.  Oh do read John Burgon, and do listen to Chris Pinto.  Consider carefully that the devil is very smart and that there can be conspiracies clever enough to deceive us all where there is a will to undermine the true work of God.

3)  The Dragon-Sized Wolf in Sheep's Clothing is the acceptance of Roman Catholicism among true Christians.   This one is common among Charismatics, which may be the main door through which the dragon has entered.  John MacArthur has been one of the most faithful opponents of this trend in the church while other big-name preachers have been guilty of embracing as orthodox the very system that was the reason for the Protestant Reformation. 

Chris Pinto (Adullam Films and Noise of Thunder radio) has opened my eyes over the last year or so to the fact that the Roman Church has been tirelessly working without a break to destroy the Reformation and restore their former power, while true believers are taught to think of the Roman "church" as just another Christian denomination, and its Inquisition that tortured and murdered some fifty million true Christians along with another seventeen million others (yes these statistics can be supported), as dead history we can safely ignore.

There are plenty of apostate movements, cults and heresies that threaten true Christian doctrine these days, but for the most part they are recognized and rejected by true Christians and under scrutiny by many Discernment ministries.  What I'm listing are hidden insidious influences WITHIN the true Church.  The above are the top three on my list although I keep thinking I'm forgetting something. 

I could, and may, add the Charismatic Movement along with its Word-Faith/Prosperity Gospel version,  which the recent Strange Fire Conference did such a good job of exposing, even possibly Dispensationalism, which is also accepted as true Christian doctrine, and perhaps Evolutionism insofar as it has undermined the belief of true Christians in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Praise God for the resurgence of Reformed thinking in the churches, but even the Reformed are susceptible to many of these deceptions.  We need a New Reformation, we need a Revival with Holy Spirit conviction of the sins of false doctrine (that it seems to me do feed individual propensity to personal sins, which is a whole topic I've been thinking about -- but Romans 1 is a clue), and with Holy Spirit inspired repentance from all these errors.  We need Fear of God, we've lost our Fear of God.

May be back to add or correct.

Bogus Bibles: A Complete Tangent to the Strange Fire issues but it was getting to me

It kept bothering me as I listened to the Strange Fire Conference so I'd like to register my objections:

BIBLE VERSIONS
I have a separate blog on the Bible manuscript controversies, The Great Bible Hoax of 1881,  and am probably hypersensitive to quotations from any of the modern Bibles, having come to regard them as based on the bogus Greek manuscripts that were introduced into all our new Bibles with the Revision of 1881.  At the Conference every time a lengthy quotation was read from -- presumably --  the New American Standard, I cringed.  The English is just plain awful in that translation, which is a different problem from the fact that it's also one of the modern versions that is based on the Critical Text, which includes the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text.  The NAS is considered to be a good "literal" translation, but in fact it is a klutzy rendering that is deaf to English, attempting to render the Greek in ways that are simply alien to the English language.   For one thing, it keeps on saying "keeps on doing" this that or the other, which is NOT the way ongoing action is normally conveyed in English.  John Burgon pointed out this strange mistreatment of English  -- yes it's a legacy from the 1881 Revision -- in his book, The Revision Revised, a massive critique of the 1881 Revision put out by the Westcott-and-Hort-dominated committee.

THE STRANGE FIRE CONFERENCE IS BASED ON ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, IT IS BASED ON SOLA SCRIPTURA, AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE THIS ALWAYS AFFIRM THAT OUR BIBLE IS INERRANT.  BUT ALL THESE VARIOUS BIBLE VERSIONS, AND ESPECIALLY THE CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS CONSIDERED TO BE THE "OLDEST AND BEST" ALTHOUGH THEY ARE FULL OF CORRECTIONS AND ERRORS, TESTIFY TO ERROR, NOT INERRANCY.  THE "SCHOLARLY" ASSESSMENT DOES LEAD SOME CANDID THINKERS TO THE FALSE BUT NOT UNREASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.   THE CHURCH NEVERTHELESS CONTINUES TO AFFIRM BIBLE INERRANCY, WHICH WE SHOULD DO IN ANY CASE, BUT BECAUSE OF THESE FALSE MANUSCRIPTS THE DEVIL HAS BEEN BUSY USING ALL THOSE BOGUS BIBLES QUITE PLAUSIBLY TO TEACH SOMETHING ELSE. 

AEON
Burgon also pointed out the equally bizarre mistranslation of the Greek word "aeon" as "age" as opposed to the King James rendering, "world."   "Age" is now in most of the new Bibles and is staunchly defended as the "correct" meaning of the Greek term, at the Conference by Justin Peters if I recall correctly, although Westcott and Hort's insistence on it merely demonstrated their ignorance of nuances of translation from Greek to English (OR possibly a more sinister motive?  They DESPISED the Textus Receptus and the King James).  Of course it also bothers me that it wouldn't just be obvious that the King James translators were the highest caliber scholars who knew Greek far better than W and H did, but maybe you have to read Dean Burgon to have a sense of the difference. 

YAHWEH
And I also cringe at the name "Yahweh" as the Name of God in the place of "Jehovah."  As for the scholarly excuses for the change - the reasons are NOT as clear as is often claimed -- even at best they are not worth the confusion and disruption of the historical usage in the minds of millions of English speaking Bible readers, not to mention the disruption of the literary and cultural heritage of centuries.  Not only does it sound to me like the name of a tribal god, a lesser god, but it shows only too tellingly the lengths to which some "scholars" are willing to go to undermine the King James Bible in one way or another.  There was NOTHING wrong with "Jehovah" just as there was nothing wrong with MANY of the English words in that Bible that the Westcott and Hort Committee chose to change, some 36 thousand UNNECESSARY changes in the English alone, that went on to spawn more and more change-for-change's sake in subsequent translations (although much of that is due to the fact that a certain number of differences from other versions is necessary for a translation to qualify for copyright). 

It's something of a puzzle why people do not simply HEAR the problem when all these different translations are compared, not to mention why we don't hear the confusion that is created by simply HAVING so many translations used by so many Christians, the cacophony, the confusion of tongues, even the simple inability to locate a verse because you've remembered its wording from a different translation.  The effect is to GARBLE THE BIBLE.  But I didn't hear it either once upon a time, I've had to learn all this stuff over the years. 

Chris Pinto is now the best source of information about what all this is REALLY about, at least the Greek manuscripts (he doesn't object to the English translations as I do).  Hint:  Vatican, Jesuits;  the Roman Catholic behemoth's plots to destroy the English Bible and ultimately whatever is left of the Protestant Reformation.  Westcott and Hort were at least Anglo Catholics, and so were/are many of the scholars who have been promoters of their Greek text.  I know, conspiracy conspiracy.  Well, you need to hear Chris Pinto and I've done some work myself toward demonstrating all this at my blogs including the Catholicism blog, nowhere near as much as needs to be done.  Pinto is the best source of all this information.

Of course this doesn't apply only to the Strange Fire Conference, it is just as true of most of today's Christian teachers, of Reformed teachers and Charismatics as well.  I do a lot of cringing these days as I listen to sermons by today's preachers.  It's just that I know MacArthur is a strong NAS guy and it started to get to me so I had to mention it.  I'd call it a "pet peeve" but obviously I take it a lot more seriously than that.

================

Later:  Listening to the Charismatic radio show host, Dr. Michael Brown, I encountered another common affront to the Church brought to us courtesy of the Westcott and Hort 1881 debacle, the belief that the last twelve verses of Mark are not authentic.  The vast majority of supposed Bible-inerrancy believers now accept this devil-wrought slap in the face of the Church.  Well, that's what we get for accepting the work of scholars who are unbelievers, who let their disbelief in the supernatural dictate their dating of the Bible among other things.  Not to mention scholars who are Jesuits.  How gullible today's Church is!  Is it too late to wake up?    

"Heaven" stories believed because the Bible is undermined?

I got this message today on that same post on the Heaven stories that still attracts so much attention:  "Counterfeit "heaven" stories deceive even Christians...":

I disagree about the author of this articles position about ' scripture being enough' for true Christians. I work hard to stay in the word, but there are often times I am challenged or am unable to interpret the meaning of a passage or a chapter. There are numerous translations which change meanings slightly. If a good person is motivated to pray more, to accept Christ or to perform works for others, then why is it impossible to believe that God is using it as a tool to reach people. The bible is a collection of historic stories written over hundreds of years. Why cannot the 'stories' be continuing to evolve? I don't think you can believe Jesus Lives and say that his word is unchanged since his death?

I don't know what branch of the Church this person belongs to but if he/she is in a standard evangelical/Bible-believing church this is a very sad message.

I didn't say God can't use these stories to reach people, I'm sure they can be used for that purpose just as so many other things can be, but that doesn't make them true in themselves.   The problem is that these stories teach a false Christ so you can't say that they lead people to "accept" the true Christ. 

But what is most distressing about this comment is the way the Bible is treated as something that could continue to evolve rather than the foundational truth it is.  Truth can't "evolve" in the direction of something that contradicts it and that's what these stories do.  Yes I certainly CAN say His word is unchanged since He lived on this earth.

This comment also suggests exactly what I've been trying to get across on my blog about the Bible versions, The Great Bible Hoax of 1881.  It is only too clear that at least for some people the many different "translations" only lead them into distrusting God's word, and I suspect they have some of that effect on all of us even if we don't go as far as this writer does.

I feel a terrible sadness when I hear a good sermon preached quoting from one of the newer Bibles, because of the lack of sensitivity to the problem of confusing the listeners among other things. 

In Isaiah 9 just for an example, "But His hand is stretched out still" in the KJV becomes "But His hand is still stretched out" in one of the newer translations and nobody recognizes that that simple little change, so inoffensive, so merely more in our own style, contributes to the undermining of trust in the Bible, and to the problem in the churches of a confusion of tongues, and the very fact that such a LITTLE change was made is an affront in itself to God and to His people.   

I had to live in this problem for a while before that became clear to me so I can't expect anyone to recognize it just on the basis of my say-so, but how I wish I could.  This is the biggest most destructive Trojan Horse within the Church there has ever been, and its armies are devastating the people of God and hardly anyone notices.

O Christians, shake off the influence of the higher critics of the Bible, it's all the devil's smoke and mirrors

I've come to believe that Chris Pinto's films should be seen by all Christians -- they've been feeding my own concerns in my blogs for a couple weeks now, from American politics to the Bible disaster of 1881 to End Times developments in general, and especially have illuminated the horrifically evil involvement of the Roman Catholic Church in these things.

CHRISTIANS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS.

Some of his radio shows should be heard too (I don't know what a "podcast" is, as opposed to a broadcast, but apparently that's what they are). His recent radio shows (March 26 and 27 at least) cover important information about the "higher criticism" of the Bible and how it can undermine the faith of Christians.

A GREAT MANY CHRISTIANS INCLUDING PASTORS ARE DECEIVED ABOUT BIBLE SCHOLARSHIP AND THE NEW TRANSLATIONS.

I was very happy to hear Pinto quote the first Psalm as an admonition to those who accept the counsel of unbelieving critical scholars such as Bruce Metzger:

Blessed [is] the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

Walking in the counsel of the ungodly is exactly what Christians are doing who accept the judgments of a Bruce Metzger. Sure, the ungodly may be great scholars in some ways, but on this subject which involves all kinds of subjective judgment calls about the history of Bible manuscripts, definitely not to be trusted.

This issue is very much like the evolution-creation issue, in which the evidence is also soft, largely a matter of mental gymnastics asserted as if it were fact, and when an unbeliever promotes such evidence it should NOT be accepted by believers.

Chris Pinto discusses Bart Ehrman on the recent radio programs, who claims to have been turned away from his original Christian belief in the inerrancy of scripture by this sort of evidence, evidence which gives an early date for a corrupt manuscript which, if accepted as valid, casts doubt on the traditional view of scripture as God's word. Ehrman was trained by Bruce Metzger. He's quite convinced, but such evidence is easily counterfeited.

Pastors and teachers who accept the judgments of a Bruce Metzger may think they are just being intellectually honest but this kind of work undermines the faith of many in the churches and can't help but do so. If they are convinced that all God's word is not all God's word, the faith of honest Christians WILL be shaken, and that undermines the power of witness in the churches.

This is the devil's work for sure.

God's name in English ought to be "Jehovah" not "Yahweh"

The use of the name "Yahweh" in the place of "Jehovah" in sermons has been jumping out at me for some time now and finally I want to say a few things about why I think it's a very bad practice. I think this discussion belongs here rather than the Bible Hoax blog because it's a more general issue than a translational issue. The King James has "Jehovah" in only four places in the Old Testament. Westcott and Hort used neither "Jehovah" nor "Yahweh" but substituted "LORD" for "Jehovah" in their miserable revision, never content to leave the King James unmolested wherever they could make a change on the flimsiest justification, but at least the use of "Yahweh" can't be directly blamed on them -- indirectly, yes, I think so.

Here's Wikipedia on the Name Jehovah, a paragraph showing one place in the text where some of the modern versions have used "Yahweh" while "LORD" was the choice in others (where apparently Westcott and Hort's example was followed), whereas only the King James continues to use "Jehovah:"

At Exodus 6:3-6, where the King James Version has Jehovah

...the Revised Standard Version (1952),[34] the New American Standard Bible (1971), the New International Version (1978), the New King James Version (1982), the New Revised Standard Version (1989), the New Century Version (1991), and the Contemporary English Version (1995) give "LORD" or "Lord" as their rendering of the Tetragrammaton

...while the New Jerusalem Bible (1985), the Amplified Bible (1987), the New Living Translation (1996, revised 2007), the English Standard Version (2001), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004) use the form Yahweh.

Even the name of God has to be a matter of democratic choice in our churches these days thanks to the current attitude of "scholarship" that leaves it up for grabs.

Many pastors and preachers rather pointedly use "Yahweh" as if it had some kind of established validation, however, apparently more concerned about meeting some notion of accuracy they've learned from somewhere than about contributing to confusion among Christians created by the use of new terms.

Is it more accurate? I don't know what weight to attribute to the Wikipedia article but it sounds like there's far from scholarly consensus on the subject, and why do we have to be accosted with changes that are a matter of scholarly dispute anyway? Shouldn't there be a conservative mindset that respects the poor Christian in the pew, protects us from matters that are beyond our judgment and from innovations that have to be unsettling at some level of our consciousness? This is one of Westcott and Hort's great crimes against the Christian church and their example no doubt inspired the use of "Yahweh" in later translations: Once it becomes acceptable to make casual changes in the text everybody feels free to get in on the act.

I've come to regard the change to "Yahweh" as an attack on the minds of believers, many of whom have spent a lifetime accustomed to the term "Jehovah." "Jehovah" is in the English-speaking mind, the English culture, in English literature, old sermons and old Christian books, and a few old hymns as well. But moving the ancient landmarks that would preserve the old territory intact is of minor importance to minds infatuated with "scholarship" and sounding erudite. Apart from the confusion -- and I even think it's cruelty of a sort -- of foisting novel terms on English-speaking Christians, the name "Yahweh" is mostly a scholarly conceit. There is nothing wrong with "Jehovah" and there is apparently good scholarly support for it too.

The name "Yahweh" sounds puny in comparison to "Jehovah" as well. Maybe that's a subjective judgment born of familiarity with "Jehovah" --I don't know-- but it sounds like a tribal deity rather than the God who made all things.

"Yahweh" is also much loved by the followers of the Hebrew Names heresy, which ought to be one good reason to resist it.

A Short History of Feminism, Pt. 2: CBMW's compromised foundations

How the Bible Versions Contribute to Liberalism and Feminism by Undermining Inerrancy

After watching the film about the 19th century women's movement, I went to the website of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in search of material on the history of feminism. Of course the preponderance of their work is aimed against feminism.

There I found Mary Kassian's book, The History of Feminism and the Church, where the material I've just covered from the film is reviewed; also a talk by Carolyn McCulley that outlines the movement and its various phases, three phases as she describes it, and also Wayne Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism, an excerpt of which is here.

As I say in my previous post, it seems to me that the feminist movement was itself born of liberalism, so to consider that today's evangelical counterpart in the church could lead to theological liberalism is only to affirm the natural affinity between the two. Grudem traces the phenomenon in the growing practice of ordaining women ministers, and analyzes the various ways Biblical inerrancy and authority are undermined to allow this. A study found that

Biblically inerrant denominations are . . . resistant to formal gender equality.10 .... for "biblically inerrant denominations" the argument that the Bible prohibits the ordination of women is by far the most persuasive argument.11

Of course, what immediately comes to my mind because of my immersion in the Bible versions issues over the last months, is that there has to be a connection with this major influence against Biblical authority. The Bible versions hoax is the biggest Trojan horse ever parked inside the churches, and it is hard to believe that the influence of the liberal thinking that brought these versions to us would not have an undermining influence on Biblical thinking in general. One of the most jarring pieces of cognitive dissonance in the general acceptance of the modern Bible versions, it seems to me, is the fact that their very existence argues against Biblical inerrancy while the evangelical churches that so uncritically accept them nevertheless try to hold onto the idea of Biblical inerrancy without noticing that the foundation for it has been pulled out from under it.

If you can question the authority of the text that was held to be preserved by God up to the King James Bible, throw it all over in favor of the notion that it had been erroneous all those centuries and that only in the 19th century was it possible to begin to reconstruct the true originals, you've stabbed the very idea of Biblical inerrancy in the heart. And this is exactly what the Westcott and Hort revision of 1881 did. They planted doubt in all the Bibles up to their time. They claimed that their own favorite Alexandrian texts had to be the truest because they were the oldest, but that required them to come up with an explanation how it was that the traditional Byzantine texts existed in such great numbers and with such obvious church approval for so many centuries afterward. Their explanation was the completely hypothetical idea that the true texts (their cherished Alexandrians) were officially revised early on, meaning officially corrupted, and that this corrupt line became the basis for the Bibles in all languages including all the English Bibles through the King James. According to this hypothesis much was added to the text that didn't belong there.

As John Burgon points out, this very hypothesis defeats itself since it implies that the church leaders must have regarded the Alexandrian texts as the corrupt ones if they felt it necessary to reject them and try to reconstruct what they considered to be the authentic text, and in the third century they would still have had access to the earliest manuscripts to work from.

In any case, this is pure conjecture. There is no evidence for this hypothetical early revision; it rests absolutely on the unsupportable assumption that the Alexandrian texts are superior, and the evidence against that assumption is voluminous. Just read John Burgon. But the assumption has prevailed in the minds of those who accept the modern versions. And it would have to work its poison into their thinking in many subtle ways, insinuating that the Bible is not inerrant but subject to the same treatment as any man-made book, which is exactly the viewpoint aggressively endorsed by the revisers themselves.

The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood doesn't question the modern versions. Some probably have no idea of the anti-inerrancy textual criticism principles that underlie them, but it can't escape all awareness that so many versions can't all be right, and that fact in itself undermines Biblical inerrancy. So to my mind the Bible versions Trojan horse must contribute to the thinking that brings liberalism into the churches by justifying opinions that contradict the Bible. They hold firmly to Biblical inerrancy with the one hand while the other surreptitiously throws it away.

I also found at CBMW that they deny that women are literally to cover our heads, in favor of a culturist explanation that effectively renders meaningless the whole idea of the covering in 1 Corinthians 11, and this seems to me to be another way Biblical authority is undermined even while it is proclaimed. In fact this is an attitude that's similar to some of those Grudem outlines as the thinking that leads to liberalism. He lists two that seem most pertinent, one being "2. Saying that New Testament teachings are "seed ideas" showing that superior teaching would come later." If Paul really was calling for a literal head covering, and this is in fact recognized, but in our superior wisdom we know he really really was only affirming the cultural standard of his day, isn't this similar to judging that what the New Testament actually said needs our superior perspective to be fully grasped? It isn't quite the same as another of Grudem's points: "4. Saying that Paul was wrong" but almost.

This is relevant because CBMW makes much of the concept of male headship in their work, but 1 Corinthians 11 is where Paul defined the concept most particularly, arguing strenuously that headship authority is symbolized by the literal human head. The head of the man is to be uncovered because he is the glory of Christ and has headship over the woman, but the woman's head is to be literally covered in order to conceal her own glory and the glory of man which she is, and to show subordination to the man's authority. But CBMW and others who follow them have dropped the literal human head part (in favor of the vague "feminine dress" which ignores the head), yet they try to hold onto the headship idea.

Along with the leaking away of Bible inerrancy through the embrace of the Bible versions, it seems to me they've got a serious leak in the idea of male headship, and the poison of liberalism is already within their own house.

Blog changes: Bible versions getting its own blog

This is my "flagship" blog as it were, and it's collected material on many different subjects. That's fine until a topic starts threatening to take over the whole blog. I already started a separate blog for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 on the woman's head covering because there's so much I'd like to gather in one place on that subject. I'm glad I did that because it keeps things a lot neater around here.

Now I'm thinking I really need to do the same for the Bible versions topic. By now I have some forty or fifty posts on that topic, however, so moving all that is not going to be an easy task. Maybe I won't move all of it but I'm going to start moving some and see how far I get.

My blogs have never been models of neatness and easy travel from one place to another and it's probably going to get a bit worse as I attempt this new project, with links here and there that don't go where they should and that sort of thing.

When I started all this I had in mind collecting links to blogs by many others on the same subjects, too, but that proved to be beyond me partly because it involves me in even more organizational problems, not to mention discussions over differences of opinion that I'm already having trouble keeping up with. I still hope to get to that.

Anyway, this is just to say a new blog about the Bible versions is my next project, and much of what is here I hope to transfer there.

Here's the new blog, The Great Bible Hoax.

SECOND THOUGHTS: I may be doing much less transferring than I expected to do, and mostly just linking back here, while I go on to post new information there.

Burgon said the Textus Receptus was not perfect

This is a footnote in a discussion of the reasons why the Textus Receptus should have been made the foundation for the Revision of 1881 instead of abandoned as was done by the Revising committee. The Revision Revised, page 21:

Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely preferable to the 'New Greek Text' of the Revisionists. And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different 'principles' from those which are just now in fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts. [his italics]

Oh that the churches would rethink the Bible versions problem

I continue to read in Burgon's Revision Revised. Mastering Burgon is no doubt beyond me but he continues to inspire -- and sadden -- me as I read. Reading him makes me cry. I feel the force of his truthfulness and his knowledge, even the Holy Spirit in his work. But what his writing reveals is a state of the Lord's church so misled by profane minds, the word of God worked throughout now with a leaven of doubt and corruption to such a degree the grief overtakes me at times. He himself did not expect that such a thing could occur. He maintained that the flaws in the Revision could not stand the scrutiny of sane minds, which he supposed would prevail. That the corrupted work should prevail instead he regarded as a terrible thing to contemplate, but he didn't allow that it could prevail. To read him now of course is to recognize that it was his warnings the churches discarded while accepting the corrupted Bibles that have come down from Westcott and Hort.

How is it that their text of the Bible got to be so accepted by so many pastors and churches? I puzzle over this a great deal as I read through Burgon again. What explanation is there but that it's God's judgment against the Church, judgment beginning at the house of God? The Anglican Church that commissioned the revision in the first place was already beginning to be infected with the 19th century rationalism which threw much of the Bible into doubt. Burgon comments that some of the new revision reflects this infection.

But how did it spread so far? It's astonishing how so many well-known teachers today seem to take it for granted, as well as many thousands of unknown pastors. In their sermons they may depend on a favorite variation on the W&H text but refer to other variations (even to the KJV which is not such a variation but an entirely different Bible) to resolve sticky points of interpretation. They ponder the principles of Greek that have been passed down from Westcott and Hort, apparently unaware that Burgon refuted them with great care and demonstrably great knowledge. In principle there's nothing wrong with comparing texts for the sake of clarity, I suppose, although isn't there something wrong with the simple fact that pastors are put in this position at all? In any case it demonstrates the degree to which the status quo of multiple Bibles is taken for granted, and the degree to which W&H's thinking prevails, and if these are seriously in error then the pastors and their churches are unfortunately the victims of a great hoax.

================
Occasionally I search for new editions of the Bible I might consider as a replacement for my King James, since I've been holding to the view that an updating would be a good thing -- I mean, of course, the Bible based on the same Greek texts as the King James, known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus, before Westcott and Hort substituted their preferred texts that Burgon has shown to be corrupt. I've also considered the Geneva Bible that preceded the King James because it was the Bible of the Puritans, but I don't want another Bible with archaic language and I believe the best opinion is that the King James was an improvement over the Geneva despite the political machinations that went on over its commissioning. There are a couple of modern translations from the Textus Receptus, but the problem is that they were done by individuals, and however well-intentioned those individuals no doubt are I don't want to tie my understanding of God's word to a source that doesn't have some recognizable church authority behind him. And I don't want a Bible that is VERY different from the King James, either. I want one that preserves its basic rhythms and patterns intact. I want FEW changes, the fewer the better, which was also the philosophy of the KJV translators themselves as they set about revising the previous work by Tyndale and others. Just the updating of the worst archaisms that stumble people. OR really good footnotes. Nothing I've seen sufficiently meets my criteria.

So I'm reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the King James it's going to have to be. Or I suppose I should call it the Authorized Version. I've read on the one hand that King James himself was a bad man, even a "sodomizer," and on the other that such accusations are politically-motivated slander, and I'm not in a position to judge any of that, BUT surely we all know that the king did not do the translation himself and that the best scholars in the realm were called in to do that work. BUT calling it the Authorized Version would nevertheless be no doubt a good habit to cultivate if I can.

It would be a major help to all of us if at least it were always made clear that the King James and its predecessors were translations from a different set of Greek (and Hebrew) texts than the vast majority of Bibles produced since Westcott and Hort. Really, it's quite strange that this is not often made clear. For instance, it is just about never brought up when the reliability of the Bible texts is discussed, although their reliability certainly depends on WHICH texts are taken as authoritative.

Just for one example, Ron Rhodes on Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability makes not one mention of the "textus receptus," or "received text" or "king james" in this connection.

He quotes the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) on the reliability of the scriptures without mentioning that they had no knowledge of any scriptures other than the King James and its predecessors.

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.

The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.

Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.

By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.

Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.

This is all misleading since it completely ignores the sea change that was brought about by Westcott and Hort in 1881.

I took it all for granted myself of course since I encountered it in every church I attended, and Bible studies as well. A particular Bible study quite strongly recommended the NASB as the best, most accurate translation, for instance, as did a couple of churches as I recall, though without mentioning that it's a translation from the Westcott and Hort textual family and not from the Traditional Text of the Authorized Version. That is, it's based on the same set of Greek texts as the NIV, the ESV, the Living Bible, and so on, which is a completely different set of Greek texts than the Authorized Version was based on, as well as the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale and all the other previous English Bibles.

In this typical frame of reference, the King James/Authorized Version is treated as merely one of the many "translations" rather than a completely different Bible, although it is not just another "translation," because it is not based on the same underlying texts. Yet the whole discussion is usually falsely framed entirely as a matter of different "translations" and the most important difference is not even mentioned, the fact that the Greek texts (and the Hebrew as well) are different.

The translations themselves are also a problem as they were very badly done, from an inferior grasp of the Greek and even an inferior grasp of English idiom, but we have to start with the textual problem as the first major problem. What we have is a proliferation of Bibles in the English language, the great majority of which are translations from sets of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that to one extent or another derive from the texts promoted by Westcott and Hort in 1881. The exact text they promoted is usually modified now in various ways, but it's still basically the same text they came up with, based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which Burgon denounces as corrupt.

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Greek texts were chosen by W&H as superior to the texts from which the King James Bible was translated merely because they are older. The idea is if it's older it's closer to the originals and therefore more reliable. The fact that they differ a great deal from the texts the KJV and its precursors relied on seems only to add to the esteem in which they are held, as if they show that the formerly trusted texts are inferior, though such a position only serves to undermine faith in God's preservation of His word over the centuries.

=========
Lord, have mercy on Your people and open our eyes to see Your hand in this frowning Providence, to repent of the sins that have brought this disaster upon us, that Your word may be pure among us again and Your glory our utmost concern and Your Spirit our guide.

Dean Burgon, the beleaguered white knight of the Bible versions wars

I've been skimming through Dean J W Burgon's Revision Revised again. I still very much enjoy his rather swashbuckling style, which I know others don't like. To me his style reflects the psychological position of someone with superior understanding having to cope with people with far less understanding who are nevertheless set as experts over him.

[added later: Since it is now the politically correct position to dismiss W&H's work as obsolete and Burgon's work therefore irrelevant, having been eclipsed by later and better texts such as more discoveries of old manuscripts, more work at putting together better versions of the Critical Text, etc., it needs to be said up front that this is merely a smokescreen. It may not be recognized as a smokescreen of course, it is no doubt sincerely believed by some as an important truth, but it is a smokescreen nevertheless, because these changes do not touch the fundamental faults of W&H but perpetuate them under cover of merely minor differences. Slight modifications to W&H's work are made, producing new editions of the Critical Text considered a great improvement over W&H, while their major errors continue to be accepted, as the very term Critical Text indicates: first of all the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and secondly even their horrifically bad translation, bad Greek, bad English. No, it ALL goes back to Westcott and Hort, it is ALL traceable to their doorstep, and Burgon's critique applies just as much now as ever and should be read as denouncing the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's texts as carriers of the original W&H enormity, the same arguments applying.]

Burgon is genuinely astonished that Westcott and Hort and their committee of revisers are taken seriously at all. Their scholarship is so ridiculously deficient he can hardly believe his eyes. I suspect that this is what leads him to employ that strong sarcastic language, hoping, I think, that if he's very forceful in his denunciations this might wake some up to the seriousness of the situation, might persuade some to rethink their acceptance of the inferior Bible produced by the revising committee. This is how he comes across to me. Unfortunately this sort of tactic almost never works. Those who don't have his level of understanding dismiss him as "exaggerating" his case and "arguing like a lawyer more than a scholar" and are not led to rethink their own judgment at all.

I rather doubt any other tactic would have worked any better, however. He is simply in a thankless position if in fact his ability is so much greater than most of his opponents' which is what I suspect from his own attitude and tone. In that case his ability to judge both the Greek and the English of the 1881 revision is so far beyond that of those who produced it, and most of those today who are regarded as Greek scholars, it's like speaking a foreign language. But the revising committee had managed to gain much prestige in its ten years of producing what Burgon regards as their execrable mistreatment of both the Greek and the English, so that their judgment is accepted by sheer force of popular impression. Pehaps in the acceptance of W&H's work there was also some mixture of relief at the eclipse of the "hard" English of the KJV (no matter that this could have been accomplished with far less damage) and perhaps some infection with 19th century rationalist bias against the supernatural claims of the Bible, which W&H themselves exhibit in their private writings, and which we know subsequently overtook much of the Anglican church down to our day.

I don't know how many of today's students of the Bible versions are even exposed to Dean Burgon's writings at all, I suspect few if any. Some ridiculous things are said against him, slightingly dismissive remarks. To say he argues like a lawyer is true enough in a way, though I think of him as having a more of a literary critic's style than a lawyer's, but to say he doesn't do a scholar's work in refuting W&H is far from the truth. Most of his book is a laborious accounting and discussion of the errors he finds in their revision.

Revision Revised is a hard read unfortunately for someone who isn't prepared to make the comparisons Burgon so carefully brings to the reader's attention. Much of the book is a discussion of the differences between the readings in the texts that were used for the King James translation and those preferred by Westcott and Hort on which all the modern Bibles have been based. Only someone who knows Greek as well as he does could really appreciate it, but I can at least grasp WHAT he is saying even if I can't verify any of it for myself.

In one discussion for instance he objects that the revising committee lacked a grasp of idiomatic Hellenistic Greek so that they clumsily literally translate what was far better and more idiomatically translated by the King James translators. "Aeon" is a case in point. To translate it "age" instead of "world" or "ages of the ages" instead of "forever" is supposed by W&H to be more "accurate" whereas according to Burgon it merely demonstrates their ignorance of both languages. I trust Burgon. His passion for the right things seems indisputable to me. And nobody would make the very specific criticisms he does who didn't have the knowledge necessary; it simply wouldn't occur to him.

But his opponents won. All our present Bibles except the King James are treated as superior and "more accurate" for that very obtuse error among other things. But it would take a higher level of knowledge than most scholars of either language have these days to recognize this. In the days of the King James those who ended up on the translating committee were often men who had been raised from childhood reading Greek, and they certainly demonstrated a superior feeling for English as well. That just doesn't happen today.

He's dismissed as "exaggerating" how much W&H depended on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although to Burgon ANY dependence on either of them is indefensible. I've seen him denounced as a "conspiracy thinker," apparently lumping him together with some of today's more extreme King-James-only defenders, but he is far from any such thing. Anyone who would say that can't have read him

Burgon wrote other books, among them a lengthy defense of the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark. I suppose it's too scholarly for me though I'd like to read it. At 350 pages the level of detail he pursues in his defense has got to be beyond me, but perhaps as with Revision Revised I could appreciate his generalizations. I'm considering investing in it anyway because I like his thinking so much. I got Revision Revised from a second-hand outlet through Amazon.com but the book on the last twelve verses of Mark is a better deal through the Dean Burgon Society.

One continuing confusion in this dispute is the habit of those who defend the modern versions of lumping the KJV in with all of them as just another translation, obscuring the fact that it was done from a completely different set of Greek texts than Westcott and Hort used for their revision. W&H had no authorization for substituting the texts of their own preference for starters, but beyond that the texts they preferred were already considered by competent scholars to be corrupt in multiple ways. Burgon addresses the corruptions in Revision Revised as well as a separate book on the subject. This historical fact is strangely ignored in current discussions of the Bible text. The subject of the reliability of the Bible texts, for instance, will be discussed at great length without the slightest reference to this most crucial distinction between the King James Bible and its predecessors and the majority of current Bibles which are all based on some version or other of the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort.

Someone I discussed this with also said that the King-James-only people confuse Westcott and Hort's text with the Nestle-Aland text, and exaggerate how much of the N/A is based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This just has to reflect some deficiency in how these things are taught, doesn't it? There is no confusion; any textual collection such as Nestle/Aland that makes use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus AT ALL is following in the footsteps of Westcott/Hort. There are two equally serious complaints against W&H and one is that they used those corrupted manuscripts at all. The other is that their English translation is atrocious.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark further defended

The post I wrote two weeks ago about the unwarranted doubt of the last verses of Mark was just a sudden inspiration I had on the subject, not expecting to have more to say. But I got a very encouraging comment on that post from a pastor James Snapp about it, with a link to his website where he has a summary of his own research into the manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the verses, and an invitation to write for his complete study. It looks very thorough and well worth reading but I don't think I have enough scholarly patience to pursue it myself right now, knowing that he has to address the many speculations and hypotheses about unknowable historical possibilities. I hope others will have the desire to follow it on out though.

Here is the manuscript summary at his own church site.

But it is also available for download at this address: Here's the site owner's introduction, and here's the whole manuscript.

(Some of the labels I've attached to this post reflect content in Pastor Snapp's study of the Bible manuscripts).

============

As I said in my own post on the subject, the only reason this passage is held in doubt is that Westcott and Hort happened to prefer a couple of early Greek manuscripts to those that had previously been accepted as the authoritative Greek text. Not only do the W&H manuscripts have really very little to recommend their authority over the traditional texts when you are aware of all the evidence, but they are notorious for throwing readings into doubt that had been accepted by Christians for all the centuries up until 1881 when W&H cast their spell over our Bible. Oh yes, there are many reasonings based on the texts themselves that support that doubting mentality, but it all started with those two men and their very questionable qualifications and their subterfuge in massively altering the Bible text when they were only commissioned to do a minimum of updating. Unfortunately those who defend this line of Bibles also manage to keep themselves from knowing about the arguments against it, such as the work of Dean John W Burgon, a contemporary of W&H.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.

14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen

Why are we to doubt this passage? Don't we know for a fact, from the testimony of scripture itself, that the apostolic generation did have these experiences? Don't we know they cast out demons over and over and over? That they spoke in tongues? That Paul picked up a poisonous viper and shook it off without harm? Don't we know they healed the sick miraculously over and over and over? Why is there any doubt about this passage? Why do the scholars choose to believe the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort? Answer: They are trusting in their fallible minds instead of in GOD.

Yes, I know the problem with this text comes in with applying it to the church after the apostolic age, but taking it just as written there is no need to insist on that application, since we know it is almost word for word prophetic of the ministry of the apostles. We know mostly of Paul plus some accounts of a few others, but from their experience we shouldn't have any trouble surmising that all the apostles experienced such miraculous powers. Some other time I might even be willing to argue that they are still available today under certain circumstances, but for now just on the face of it this much-disputed passage in Mark ought to be regarded as unimpeachably the word of the Lord.

And then if you read the evidence for its legitimate transmission in the following you should have no more doubts at all. This is a page about Mark 16 from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory which gives historical reasons to accept the passage and gets at the mutilating effects of the fleshly mind on God's word:

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark's Gospel has been lost. [3] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. [4] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). [5]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation.

Seems to me the W&H defenders need to shake off their trust in the scholarly establishment, or more to the point shake off their fleshly intellect and open their spiritual eyes! If you exercise your fleshly mind on these things without immersing yourself in prayer in the fear of God and abiding in Him, you will end up discarding His very word and missing the spiritual riches He has given us.

Doubt about the passage is based completely on accepting Westcott and Hort's text and their despising of the Textus Receptus which was the traditional text on which the KJV was based. It also suggests the liberal prejudice against the supernatural we're so familiar with today. Both inclinations have brought about the mutilation of the Biblical text which had been passed down through the centuries, a mutilation apparently accepted today even by the most conservative scholars, even those who are usually alert to this kind of destruction. Following Westcott and Hort's mugging of the Bible, today conscientious studious pastors of even the most Bible-focused churches determine the canon of Holy Scripture by the flesh rather than the spirit. That is why they have either done away with Mark 16:9-20 or hold it in oh-so-fussy head-proud "doubt."

I know so many sincere Christians who will defend the Westcott and Hort profanation of God's word. Otherwise good preachers trust in their scholarly training and their carnal intellectual strengths for judging God' word. The church is so weak compared to what it seems to me the Bible shows us is possible and desired by the Lord. The flesh can preach the Bible, can even preach spiritual truth (and I am susceptible to the same mistake), but only what is preached in the spirit has value and has power to save.

Maybe we're the apostate church?

This blog is really a record of changes I've been going through. I'm going through a period in which all sorts of things that feel wrong to me, that have bothered me for some time at some barely-conscious level, are coming to consciousness and I'm willing now to argue the point. The question in my last post about living on credit is just one of the latest.

As I say in my Profile I started out at the beginning of 2007 seeking the Lord and through that seeking being led back to a concern I had dropped a few years previous to that, about the question of whether women should cover our heads in church. That was the one that started it all. I'd dropped it because I'd discovered hostility to it -- specifically a jocular mocking of the idea as a few of the women pranced around coquettishly wearing hats for a while, including the pastor's wife (I'd discussed it with him earlier but not with her). After that I rationalized dropping it as being too much of a disturbance to make an issue of it. But some things SHOULD cause a disturbance. Not that it should come from me personally. (Or maybe it should if there's nobody else. I'll have to pray about that more.)

Some two and a half years later, though, at the beginning of 2007, I was clearly convicted of it and had to begin covering my own head at least, no matter what. I also did a thorough study of the question in order to be able to defend the idea to people, covered all the material available to me including a recommendation by my pastor, found many good articles on it on the internet. I started wearing a simple little beret type hat to church, pretty inconspicuous (and not really quite what the Bible requires either, but a beginning compromise since shocking people with anything more than that is clearly not going to be productive), but again found myself frozen out by the women, mostly polite nonresponse but again with some subtle mocking behavior. Six months later I left that church anyway, for a number of reasons, some of them doctrinal. At first it was accidental: For a while I was without a ride to church. I kept letting it slide and then all my disagreements with them started adding up too. I believe it's the best church around here, nevertheless, the best preaching anyway, on most subjects, and the Lord may yet have me go back.

More recently I got involved in the Bible versions question, which I've covered at perhaps tedious length on this blog already. That was also an issue for me some years before that I'd also dropped -- also because it made me the lone defender of an unpopular idea among the Christians I know, coward that I am. On this subject I find myself almost just as much at odds with the King James defenders as with the multiple-version Westcott and Hort defenders. I guess that's because I'm really a Textus-Receptus defender more than a King James-only defender. But I'd like to see the King James preserved as far as possible for a variety of reasons. On this subject it seems even the best churches and best teachers in my opinion are completely given over to the multiple translations and I probably have even less of a chance of convincing anyone I know of this than of the head covering.

Back at the beginning of 2007 I also started pursuing the question why we aren't having revival in the churches, whether we could still, and how it might happen if the Lord would permit it. Time is getting short it seems, things are looking a lot like we're winding down to the Very End. Many signs of it as I discussed early on in this blog. Really wanting to know why we aren't having revival in such a time as this led me into thoughts about how perhaps the churches are simply too far out of God's will by now for Him to be willing to send us a true revival. Perhaps the women's head covering matters more than anyone wants to think? The last major revivals I'm aware of, a century or so ago, were in churches where women still wore something on their heads. I doubt that could be the only reason we aren't having revival now, of course, but after studying it I can't think it's unimportant. It's a creation-based command of God, it concerns his government for his creation, it involves respect for his order in this universe.

As for other reasons, well, even in the conservative churches you'll find Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage compromised. He said, and Paul confirmed it, that there's no reason for divorce except sexual unfaithfulness and no reason at all for remarriage ever, after divorce that is; it's only legitimate if the first spouse has died. None of this was a point of contention a hundred years ago. I've heard it argued that if scripture grants an exception for divorce an exception is granted also thereby for remarriage, but I'm not yet convinced. For one thing it is NEVER stated anywhere that remarriage is permitted. Not that it can't be forgiven once it has been committed ignorantly.

Along with all this compromised teaching in the conservative churches as a reason God might not give us revival, there are plenty of fake revivals going on too, and a real danger that the majority of lukewarm Christians could be drawn into the counterfeits even by a serious seeking for true revival. This is a real possibility because there is so little genuine spiritual discernment among Christians, and because we've all sat under this compromised teaching I'm talking about. Somehow or other the whole church, at least the whole church in the West, is out of step with the Lord. How far out of step? How deep is the problem?

We conservative Christians are used to being able to point to churches we recognize as apostate, all the "liberal" churches that outright deny certain Biblical commands and precepts, on homosexuality for instance. But is it possible that the apostasy is actually closer to home?

One thing that bothers me quite a bit, though I feel bad saying it because it seems so innocent in a way, is all the light sentimental and jokey emails I get from Christian friends. It's just not a Christian tone. I'm also lately getting particularly bothered by the political focus of so many of them -- and I've contributed to that myself. Where is the church that was to be a light to the world? We're just acting like the world. Where is the power? Where is our awareness of the glorious Kingdom and our Lord of glory? Where is the radical self-denial we're supposed to be living? I have to say that I do not see this in ANY church or ANY Christian I've ever known, certainly including myself.

A subject I want to talk about in a blog or two after this is some helpful websites I've discovered and especially what I've learned about the practices of the first couple centuries of Christians. THEY lived what Jesus taught in a way we simply do not. They lived true self-denial, true love of the brethren, true separation from the world in a way that has become sadly foreign to Christians today, sadly and certainly including me.

More objections to the KJV (J. Herrin) Pt. 2

He continues, quoting from a letter he received:

Following is an excerpt from Gary Amirault that reveals some of the information he found on the KJV Bible in doing his own research.
----------------------------

It was extremely painful for me (Gary Amirault) when researching Bible translations to come across the fact that in 1851 the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the King James Bible and discovered over 24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible translation! How could there be an inerrant King James Bible when even the different editions of the King James Bible had ten's of thousands of variant readings!? I was told by tradition not to question the inerrant King James Bible. No one ever told me that even in the very first year of the King James Bible, two different printings of the very same King James were not the same. No one ever told me that the editions of the KJV up until the 19th century contained 14 additional books not in today's editions. We have an exact reprint of one of the 1611 printings that contains books such as: The Idole Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, The prayer of Manasseh, Tobit, Judith, the Song of the Three Children, Baruch, etc.. Can you find these books in a present edition of the King James Bible? If the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is a true doctrine, which of the many editions of the KJV is the inerrant one? The original one contained books no longer in the present editions. Have these publishers "taken away from the Word?" Will the plagues of Revelation be on your head because you are using a KJV missing 14 books?

It's too bad the discussion usually gets started on a note such as this, which has been addressed many times by the many KJV-only defenders, but perhaps they should be held to blame for it because of their aggressive insistence on inerrancy, and even in some cases the "inspired" perfection of the King James. Clearly, the existence of even minor errors at any time in the history of the Bible text shows that is not the case. [See Theodore Letis article, link at very bottom of post, for a discussion of the history of the term "inerrant."]

The usual answer, however, is that the changes made WERE extremely minor, predominantly a matter of correcting printers' errors and bringing various spellings to a consistent standard. The Apocryphal books were not treated as canonical although they were included. And so on.

The Bible Inerrancy Camp and the King James Only Camp teach that we have a perfect Greek text or imply it. It is called the "Textus Receptus" by the KJV camp which is Latin for "Received Text." They teach this text was available to the King James translators which allowed them to produce an inerrant English translation. Historical records regarding this "Textus Receptus" proves their view to be totally false.

Although some do make this claim, not all defenders of the KJV claim that either the translation or the Textus Receptus are flawless. Dean J W Burgon, for instance, is one who described both as needing some correction.

First of all, the term "Textus Receptus" first appears in a second edition of Stephanus Greek text produced by the Elzevire Brothers in 1633, twenty two years after the King James Bible was printed!

When the term appeared shouldn't be important. Things often get labelled after they've been in existence for some time.

It was an advertising pitch as false as most commercials are today. The so-called Textus Receptus began its debut in 1516. It started as a work which took a self-proclaimed "humanist" Roman Catholic monk only several months to, in his own words "throw together rather than edit."

Yes, he was in a rush and yes, he was a "humanist" but that term in those days was far from what it means to us today. Nowadays people are likely to read the term "secular" into the word, as in "secular humanist," but there was nothing secular about the term in those days. Too many silly ideas get perpetuated by people reacting from a modern context to an old way of thinking.

One critic in England called it the "least carefully printed book ever published." Erasmus in trying to be the first to get a Greek text in print, threw together in a few months what it took his competitors at Alcala de Henares University many years to assemble. The University's text came to be known as the Complutensian Polyglott. Erasmus only had a handful of very late manuscripts to work from, none of which contained the complete Greek New Testament, so he filled in the gaps from the Latin Vulgate. That is why the Textus Receptus has words that do not agree with any known Greek text. He corrected his text in 4 subsequent editions.

Yes but the number of actual differences among them all is really small considering how they were put together.

Again, Mr. Amirault's astonishment and doubt comes from a lack of knowledge of how the varieties of Greek texts are dealt with. I think we're all a bit shocked when we first learn something about the enormous number of them and the number of variations in them, but the more you get to know about the subject the more you see that the differences are quite small and for the most part can be traced to a simple error in transmission.

Here's a description of the actual composition of the KJV in relation to all the Greek texts available, from The Text of the King James Version at David Cloud's Way of Life.org:

A) THE KING JAMES VERSION A VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus [Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 60]. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.

So it's not as simple as it is often misunderstood to be. The King James translators made careful choices among many options. And it doesn't appear that Erasmus' translation was any the less to be deserving of consideration for all his rush.

But Mr. Amirault goes on in his painfully disillusioned state of mind:

In the mid 1500's a man named Stephanus took Erasmus' text, and combined it with the Complutensian Text. He produced several editions making changes along the way. The Stephanus text, which the King James translators used, differed from the self-proclaimed "Textus Receptus" in 287 places. There are no known Greek manuscripts that agree "inerrantly" with either the Textus Receptus or the Stephanus text. Erasmus, the originator of the so-called "inerrant" Greek text later to be called the "Textus Receptus" dedicated his work to Pope Leo X who later would condemn Luther and the Reformation. For a full account of this sad chapter of church deception, read "The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger. Foundation Press in Anaheim, California also has some valuable information.

And again, the discovery of some of the facts in the history of the messy business of textual criticism and construction and reconstruction have raised doubts in his mind, which are simply the product of a lack of familiarity with enough of the facts, the methods and the history to judge. From the idea of "inerrancy" he had apparently arrived at an expectation of a perfection that wasn't in fact intended by anyone familiar with the actual texts, although the term was probably a bad choice (See the Theodore Letis comment linked at the bottom of this post concerning "inerrancy").

The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'" Unfortunately notes such as these as well as much other information contained in the Original KJV have been removed to support the "Inerrancy" fraud. Enough . . . of this sad chapter of Bible translating...

Just because you have been shocked at your first apprehension of the varieties of different Greek texts that actually exist doesn't mean that it is "fraud" or that anyone has intended to deceive by the use of such terms as "inerrancy." [Read the Theodore Letis article linked below for a discussion of the history of this term.]

There was a time when Bible writing was strictly in the hands of the church. The end result was the church put the Bible into a "Sacred" language called Latin which common people in latter times could not and were not allowed to read. It was called the Vulgate. The common people could not read the Scriptures in their native tongue of English, German, French, etc.. Getting caught with any portion of the Scriptures in your native language could get one killed by the church! Please believe us. This is true. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox churches did not want Christians or non-Christians reading the Scriptures.

Yes, but this is a red herring. Let's get it in perspective. The original determination of the canonicity of various Greek texts and their translation into the Latin did not carry any of this baggage, and is regarded by defenders of the KJV (including Theodore Letis at the link below), as the basis for the Traditional Text or Textus Receptus used by the KJV translators, as far superior to any other textual tradition. The tyranny of the Latin translation developed later in the history of the Roman Church, but the Bible had been translated into many languages in the early years, such as Syrian and I believe also Armenian, which were also available to and taken into account by the KJV translators, so they were not dependent on the Latin translation. Of course in the Roman West it was translated into Latin which was the language of that time and place.

When the first Common Language Bibles began to appear in the languages of the world, the state and church still had much control over the wording, who could read it, and which translations one could read. An Anglican Protestant was not allowed to read a Lutheran Bible. King James did not want the people of England to read the English Geneva Bible produced by John Calvin and his associates. Church leaders used the notes in the Geneva Bible as Scriptural support to tell the King how to rule. Before James the first was king of England, he was King James the sixth of Scotland. The Presbyterians caused him much trouble and their favorite Bible was the Geneva Bible. King James commissioned the King James Bible because of political reasons, not because of a love of the Creator. The English were strongly being influenced by the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible which states that the people of a monarchy had the right to overthrow that monarchy if it did not line up with Scripture? King James believed in the "Divine Right of the King." He called the Geneva Bible "seditious." Therefore, he commissioned the King James Bible.

King James had very little to do with the translation itself, so it really doesn't matter how corrupt he was. Yes, he persecuted believers, and yes, he had a thing about the Divine Right of Kings. But in fact this latter is an arguable point for a Christian, considering the scripture that says it is God who appoints government. Consider that David would not do anything to dispute the divine right of Saul to reign despite Saul's apostasy. In any case it's an arguable point and not the basis for condemnation you are making of it.

He gave the committee 15 rules which they had to abide by while translating his Bible. Several of those selected for the committee resigned because of these stipulations. This list is printed in most well researched Bible translations reference books. We will mention just a couple to show you that this version was not going to be pure nor "inerrant." "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." (Doesn't sound like a "new" translation , does it?)

Did he come up with those rules? I thought they were developed by the KJ group themselves.

Why were you expecting a completely new translation? The King James translators intended to put together the best English translation from the already-existing translations, such as the Tyndale and the Bishops Bible, and some 95% of it reflected those. They painstakingly compared every known text and every known translation of the time. They were aiming for the best version, not a new version. All the previous translations were regarded as God's word. But you are astonished because you expected something else without justification.

"3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. The word church not be translated Congregation &c." (This was to insure the old Roman Catholic\Anglican rituals, ordinances, and doctrines be not altered. They couldn't change the word baptize into immerse, for example.) "4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith." (In others words, they must abide by the "traditions of the elders." Remember Jesus' words, "You have made the word of God of none effect by your traditions?)

They were aiming to maintain as much of the Bible familiar to the people as possible. What's wrong with that? The terms do not falsify the meaning. The problem with the proliferation of Bibles today is that it's hard to know what people are quoting when they use a translation you're unfamiliar with, and there are so many of them this experience is repeated quite frequently. It may be arguable whether congregation is better than church, or immerse is better than baptize, but good preachers always aim to bring out the meaning of the text anyway, so I've been taught that "church" means "assembly" and "baptize" means "immerse" in more than one church. There's no reason to impute scurrilous motivations to the people who decided to maintain the traditional terms. Again, ALL the previous Bibles were regarded as God's word.

These examples should be enough to show one that the King James translators were not "anointed by God" to produce an authentically original translation free from political and denominational bias.

Oh, this is simply nonsense, based on only a partial research into a very complicated situation. The idea of "an authentically original translation" is a false expectation. But if you understand that they carefully considered every word of the existing translations and compared them to the Greek texts and to other translations in other languages, you have to see that in a sense theirs was original. Where they could they confirmed the language of a previous English version, and where they saw the need for change in keeping with the Greek text, they made the change.

They were "appointed by James" for political and monetary reasons. King James didn't put a penny into the project, but he could make money out of the project since it was his Bible. Not only were the translators not "anointed," but the King's printers weren't anointed either. The early printings had printers errors which were downright embarrassing for a so-called "inerrant" Bible.

As I understand it, the Church of England owns the King James Bible. Where are you getting the idea that the king benefited from its sale? Please, quote something to show that this has any validity.

Also, those were the first years of the printing press and you are expecting printers to be experts in the English language as well as perfect at the skill of setting type. Actually, the translators were genuine Christians. Read something about them. On the other hand, the same cannot be said for Westcott and Hort who did the 1881 revision and foisted a whole new set of Greek texts on the church: they think more like rationalists than Christians.

Please, give up the conspiracy thinking. KJV-onlies do go overboard in their insistence on supposed inerrancy, but they also recognize all these differences that you are only just discovering, and you really need to read them all before you arrive at such a blanket condemnation. See my list of links in the right margin.

In one edition they forgot to put the word not in the 7th commandment!

Yes, and I learned all about these things from the KJV-only defenders. Printers' errors are not errors of substance. Spelling errors are not errors of substance. Errors of substance are all that should really count.

The translator's [sic] have this to their credit. They noted in the preface to the reader that they only took previous men's work and hoped to make a better one, knowing others would follow them and produce even a better one yet. This preface has been also removed from present day King James Bibles because it does not conform to the fundamentalist's "inerrancy" teachings. That is why the translators preface is no longer printed in current King James Bibles.

Are you sure that's why, or is it just your imagination working overtime now that you've decided it's all a conspiracy?

We have made several tapes dealing with the many misconceptions and untruths proclaimed about the KJV. We mention here, only a few points to clearly show that the teaching of an "inerrant" KJV is a pure myth.

Again, see the Theodore Letis quote I've linked at the bottom of this post.

In 1611 two separate editions of the KJV were printed. They came to be known as the "Great He Bible" and the "Great She Bible" because one printed Ruth 3:15 as "he went" and the other printed "she went." These two original King James Bibles, printed in the first year this Bible was issued, had several thousands differences.

Another printer's error, well known and discussed by KJV-onlies. Go to the forum at the AV1611 site to find such discussions. Many many printer's errors and spelling inconsistencies, and really very little substantive.

When asked to endorse the KJV, Hugh Broughton, foremost Hebrew scholar of England at that time said he would rather "be rent to pieces by wild horses than have had any part in the urging of such a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people."

Was he reacting to the many errors or did he prefer the Geneva or something like that? Many objected to the KJV when it was first published. The same was true for every translation before and after it. Similar things have been said about every version of the Bible. A little more information has to be given in order to judge the validity of the statement.

It is vital to understand that when the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox church removed the Scriptures from the common people, these churches were then able to bring in hundreds of pagan doctrines, idols, and false religious rites. The mythologies of the Romans, Greeks, Teutons, Norse, Druids etc. were incorporated into church teaching which produced great darkness. Read about the dark ages of Europe which were brought about by Christian leaders, the popes, bishops, cardinals, and kings appointed by the pope.

What exactly are you finding in the KJV that reflects any of that pagan darkness? The King James translators made use of all the previous translations and a whole slew of Greek texts as well as texts in many languages, and they were solid Christians so they would not be interested in pagan teaching. Where are you getting such ideas?

When the Reformation began, the minds of Christian leaders were so cluttered by superstition and false doctrines that the progress they made in breaking away from the total darkness of Romanism was really only a small step out of darkness. We forget that the Anglican Church began, not because of Godly reasons, but from political and personal ones. Also don't forget, King James was much more interested in a Bible to support his view of the "divine right of the king" than to produce an inerrant Bible. Church historians have glorified the Reformation far beyond what was really accomplished. Today, we still have a long way to go.

It is good to be reminded of the context in which it was done, but you can't let your feelings about the context judge the outcome as you are doing. Despite the politics of the English version of the Reformation, there were great men of the Reformation there that you may be implicitly slandering, including the KJ translators. But concerning the Bible, you have to SHOW that there were pagan influences IN the text. Where are they? You have to SHOW that the "divine right of kings" is contradicted by the scripture. You have to SHOW that King James had any influence on the text. it was an interpretive note in the margin of the Geneva Bible that he objected to, not the text itself, no?

Today, most Bibles are produced by merchants. The church proved it only perverted the "Word of God" when she was sole guardian of it. She hid it, then changed it. Now merchants produce most Bible translations which must be sold for a profit which usually means giving the market what they want. Over 350 English translations of the New Testament have been marketed to date. The most popular and accepted translations are, of course, those which can be used to support Christendom's doctrines. Pastors will push those translations which work for them the most.

When a major Bible translation is undertaken by a publisher or some other institution, the directors are not only responsible for getting the text translated; they must also make sure that the resulting work will, over time, pay for the cost of translation and make a profit. In other words, they are under a directive to make sure that the completed Bible supports the majority view of Christendom's doctrines. The market first, accuracy to original texts second. The bottom line of present day Bible translating is: It must sell!

Yes, the place to look for the perversions is in the Bibles that are put together for money. For all your objections to some supposed intentional perversion of the text first authorized by the church and passed down the millennia you have shown none. On the other hand, there is in fact reason to suspect intentional perversion of the Greek texts that were chosen by Westcott and Hort (see my last link at the bottom of this post, where Jay P. Green discusses the corruptions of those texts), though by your attacking the KJV you may be implicitly defending them.

Your objections may possibly be a valid basis for some needed corrections to the KJV, but by your attitude it seems you would apparently throw the whole thing out and start over. This is the mistake that Westcott and Hort made and the church has been suffering ever since from their inferior English and their inferior Greek texts. The most minimal restrained correction of the KJV is what they were supposed to produce, and since they didn't do it, it still needs it. Instead, many editions of it have been subjected to the falsifications of their corrupted Greek texts and a wild variety of English substitutions without rhyme or reason.

[J. Herrin] D., this reveals just some of the things I have found about Bible translations as I researched them. It is also often overlooked by people who support the superiority of the KJV that this was the same king of England that persecuted those who disagreed in any way with the Anglican Church of England. He would even imprison men and confiscate their houses, leaving their women and children to struggle for survival. Is this the heart of someone who really loves God and who loves the children of God? It was this same King James that persecuted those we know as the Pilgrims and he tried to keep them from leaving England. Eventually they did flee to Holland to escape his tyranny, and later they sailed to America.

Is it not a conflict that we venerate these early pilgrims for their desire to worship God in Spirit and in truth, and we feel pity for all the hardship they faced, yet we also venerate the King who caused the hardship and we declare that the translation of the scriptures that he authorized is a superior translation? Somehow the church's prejudices have disconnected them from the truth. King James was a tyrant and he was by no means a godly ruler. Yet many in the church staunchly defend the Bible that he ordered written for political and monetary reasons.

King James is probably neither as bad as the anti-KJV paint him, nor as defensible as some of the KJV-onlies paint him, and it would be good to know for sure, but again, King James did NOT do the translation. Perhaps his name should be removed from it. Many have suggested that.

Again, I don't share these things with you to antagonize you, and I hope you are not offended that I have shared them. These are things I have learned as I have done my own studies, and I believe it is the Spirit of Yahweh that has led me to these things. I want to walk in truth and to avoid error so I weigh carefully the things people speak to me. Paul praised the Berean believers for doing this very thing.

May you be blessed with the wisdom and understanding that is in Yahshua our Lord,

Joseph

I would like to append some more information here to this page, as there are many more things that I have come cross in my study of Bible translations. Adlai Loudy, in support of the Concordant Literal Version of the Bible, made some of the following observations.

And he goes on to quote Loudy:

In John 20:1, the King James reads:
“The first day of the week . . .”

It is little known to Christendom that this is a “bogus” translation foisted upon the church by the translators, a “camel” that has been swallowed by scholars and students alike. The writer had a well meaning brother in the Lord, who became so concerned about me and my teaching that he traveled a long distance to go over the matter with a view to readjusting me in the truth. After patiently listening to all that he had to say, I suggested a few things to him, one of which was the fact that the Scriptures, correctly translated, knew nothing about “the first day of the week.” He threw up his hands in astonishment that I would make such an irreverent indictment of the “Bible!” After facing the facts. He apparently preferred “error” to the truth, as he made no attempt to reply and quit the subject without any explanation whatever.

The original, in all three of the oldest manuscripts, reads: mia ton sabbaton, ONE OF­THE SABBATHS. Our translators presumed to know more than the great Author and corrupted the word of God. They altered “one” to read “first,” inserted the word “day,” for it is not in the original and is not needed in the translation, and changed “sabbaths” to the singular “week.” Can one imagine a more perfidious and deceptive act of man? It truly is repugnant to those who reverently regard the original as the very word of God, and want it to speak to them as He was pleased to give it...

I'll have to research this later, to find out what various others have to say about this particular phrase. Often there is a very good reason why a phrase was translated in a way that is less than literal according to the original Greek. Sometimes, in order to get across a meaning in the target language requires something other than a literal word-for-word rendering, but people with no knowledge of the language being translated, and no experience in the problems of translation, may misjudge as inaccurate or even fraudulent what is really the most accurate rendering for the sake of understanding. I don't know if that is or isn't the case here, but this whole problem of texts and translations has now become the playing field of so many novices and amateurs --including myself -- by necessity unfortunately, thanks to Westcott and Hort -- that this kind of misunderstanding is likely to be very common, and seems to have been committed by Mr. Amirault, quoted above, and Mr. Herrin too.

As for "bogus" translations, the place to look is in the lineage that has come down from Westcott and Hort.

The Authorized Version renders Romans 7:24 thus: O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Since the King James “Bible” was made, this question has been read and reread by the saints of God, but the answer has been lacking. THE CONCORDANT VERSION, following the editor of Sinaiticus, restores the answer that has been lost all these years. It reads: A wretched man I am! What will rescue me out of this body of death? Grace! Now I am thanking God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord...

Is there an actual word in the Greek text that means "grace!" or did the editor of the Sinaiticus put it in as being implied? And if it is in the text, is it only in the Sinaiticus and not in the Textus Receptus or what? More explanation is needed.

These examples could be multiplied many times, but this will suffice to show that we should be very careful about building divisive articles, dogmas and doctrines on such imperfections, as are manifest in these older versions. Since the King James “Bible” was issued in 1611, some forty new dictionaries have been issued to keep pace with the growth and changes in the English language. The English and American revision committees made 36,191 changes —rectifications — of the King James Version that more closely conform to the original, after which President Schaff said the work was still far from perfect!

Of course we should be careful, and unless we are trained experts in any of the relevant fields, doubly careful. And yes, the English language has changed, but to bring that up here is not very helpful, as the problems with the various Bible translations and versions have very little to do with this mundane fact. A few dozen words at most are in question as far as archaic meanings go, and that may be an overestimation.

I assume the 36,191 changes referred to were made in the Westcott and Hort revision of the King James? If so, it is not hard to show that by far the majority of them are ridiculously unconscionably unnecessary, change for change's sake, and this fact was noted by Dean Burgon and Bishop Wordsworth and others when the revision was first published. I also did my little experiment using Psalm 91 at this blog and was appalled at the utter whimsicalness of the changes made. Purely destructive changes.

Schaff is known as a defender of the revision, but there is not enough information given to know in what sense he regarded the work as far from perfect.

The above comments are all by Mr. Loudy. I personally have not found any translation that would merit a stamp of approval as the single best and most accurate translation. Perhaps this has been God's will to keep His children ever seeking, and ever knocking, that they might find that truth is a person, and much more than mere words on a page. Yahshua said "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and He has sent us His Spirit to guide us into all Truth. If we had a single inerrant translation many would fall into the habit of spending far too little time seeking the mind of the Spirit, believing that they could comprehend Truth through mere mental ascension.

The present state of Bible translations forces the seeker of the mind of Christ to come to the throne of God time after time, asking the Father to lead us to Truth through the working of His Spirit in us.

I appreciate this point of view very much. I've wondered why God allowed the Bible to get into such a state as we now find it. Negatively, it is easy to see it as judgment against the church and I believe that is the case, but He never abandons His remnant and positively, "All things work together for good to those who love God and are the called according to His purpose." Yes, it is Himself we want, and the Bible is the word that shows Him to us. It has to be accurate, but it doesn't have to be perfect for that purpose. People have been saved through reading a mere page of the Bible, without having access to more of it at that time. And we do have the Holy Spirit to show us what He desires to reveal to each of us individually. He opens and closes the doors. He brings the necessary knowledge to us as it is required for His purposes.

Unfortunately, the very existence of all these translations does in fact encourage an overuse of the fleshly intellect. That's one of the worst things about this situation.

Choosing a Bible translation is one of the thornier issues among Christians today, and many have exhibited a decided lack of grace and love toward their brothers who should disagree with some favorite translation. Nowhere is this more evident than those who have camped out around the KJV Bible, yet as we have seen, it was not divinely inspired in its translation, and has had thousands of revisions and changes, and is still full of so many errors and prejudices as to make it difficult to rely upon.

True about the attitude of the KJV-onlies, but the attitude of the anti-KJV-onlies also often leaves much to be desired.

As for the unreliability of the KJV, absolutely not. It was not "divinely inspired" because no translation can be inspired, only the original can be inspired, but it is the best translation we have these days. The "thousands of revisions and changes" are not as it seems at first glance, the first changes being mostly to correct minor errors, and ironically, the changes since Westcott and Hort being to corrupt the KJV along with all the other versions, to bring it into line with their corrupt Greek texts -- not the KJV's fault at all. The supposed prejudices, as far as they are regarded as deceitful, are largely imagined and not real. There are far more of those in the Westcott-Hort production.

The church today resembles very much the Corinthian church that Paul derided for their carnality. They had divisions among them based upon who their favorite teacher was, Paul, Apollos, Peter, and even Yahshua. The church today still has its divisions, and one source is found in arguments over which Bible translation is the best. I believe there is no "best" translation, and the serious student would do well to compare many translations and to do research of their own. A great help to me is in comparing how a word was used in other instances by the same author, or by other authors of the time. By comparing in this manner we can see what a word's actual meaning was, and we can see if the translators have altered it in certain places to fit their own views. Time after time this has led me to discover some alteration of the Scriptures that served to obscure truth from the readers.

I've been impressed by some of the conclusions Mr. Herrin has come to in his studies of various Bible passages, but it does seem to me that this very requirement that we spend so much time comparing translations is a handicap we're laboring under since Westcott and Hort, and not at all the ideal. How many rank and file Christians have the gifting to do that for starters? It's a lot to ask of the body of Christ. Throughout history God's people have learned His ways from one text or translation, and in some cases only part of a translation, and sometimes only from the readings heard in church. Many in the first generations of the church did not have a complete New Testament. God Himself teaches His people when they are seeking Him for understanding. The Holy Spirit interprets the scripture and fills in any gaps for those who are waiting on Him. It is not a blessing that we have this surfeit of choices in our day.

Let us not be saints that adopt some prejudiced view of which Bible translation is the best, but let us seek to urge one another to a pursuit of the truth and to expose error wherever we find it.

Amen.
=====================================================
Here's a link to a discussion by Theodore Letis showing some of the history of the thinking on the question of inerrancy, which he explains in terms of Benjamin Warfield's inadvertently contributing to the Jesus Seminar mentality by accepting the idea of a "scholar's text" over the "traditional text" handed down by the church since Nicea.

I'm including this one from David Cloud's site as a clue to the thinking of textual critic Bruce Metzger. Search "Metzger" to see how he denies the inspiration of the Bible. Cloud calls him a "modernist."

And here's a good brief statement of what's right with the KJV and wrong with all other Bible translations, plus a quote by Jay P. Green. The article concludes:

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors,it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV,NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

The writer of this article has a list of words he regards as archaic. Many of them I would hate to see changed according to his list myself. Some of the originals are poetic, but really not hard to understand. "Clean heart" isn't improved by "right attitude" to my mind for instance. In fact "clean heart" is a lot clearer.

From this last link I'd also like to quote a fair amount from Jay P. Green:

"What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that seven different hands of 'textual critics' can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of Christ--and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus . . . .

" . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that 'the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written' . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean....Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their 'textual science' by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own 'versions' . . . .

" . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green's Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as 'late readings' by nearly unanimous consent of the 'textual scientists' are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not reported to the class."