Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts Eight and Nine - 8:17 AM, 2/5/2012 |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts Eight and Nine Bernard Pyron PART EIGHT Part 8: Riders of the Wrecking Machine; John 3: 13, Christ Was Omnipresent While In Human Flesh John 3: 13: Textus Receptus: kai oudeis anabebeken eis ton ouranon ei me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou o on en to ourano John 3: 13: Westcott-Hort: kai oudei anabebhken eis ton ouranon ei me o ek tou ouranou katabas o uios tou anthropou. The Westcott-Hort Greek text leaves out "o on en to ourano," "who is in heaven." For John 3: 13 the King James says "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." The American Standard Version (1901) for John 13: 3 says "And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, the Son of man, who is in heaven." The American Standard did not follow Westcott-Hort on John 3: 13. Here is the New American Standard Version for John 3: 13: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." And the Revised Standard Version says "No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." Finally, the NIV tells us that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came down from heaven - the Son of Man." The Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation all say "who is in heaven," affirming that Jesus Christ while in the flesh was still fully God and omnipresent. The site Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament says that the Alexandrinus, most Byzantine texts, most of the Old Latin texts, the Latin Vulgage, the Pe****ta Syraic the Harclean Syraic, some Coptic texts and several others have the wording "who is in heaven." The texts that do not have "who is in heaven" are the Sinaiticus, Vatricanus, papyrus p66, papyrus p75, some Coptic texts and several others. The Westcott-Hort or Alexandrian omission of "who is in heaven" from John 3: 13 takes out of this verse the important statement that while on earth in the flesh Jesus Christ was also present in heaven. Gnostic teachings said that while the Christ as the saviour was in the evil material world, he was completely separated from the Eternal Father in the spiritual world. Therefore, the Christ as an Aeon created by the Eternal Father would not be present in heaven while on earth. But the Textus Receptus-King James, etc. wording of "who is in heaven" says just the opposite, that the Saviour while on earth in a physical body was also present in heaven with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Again, the omission of "who is in heaven" is consistent with gnostic theology. But this one example is not absolute decisive proof that gnostics changed the Alexandrian Greek New Testament copies while the copies with the Byzantine wording were not changed. But it offers evidence that the Alexandrian Greek texts are more consistent with gnostic teachings than is the Textus Receptus, which represents the Byzantine Greek texts. PART NINE Part 9: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: I John 5: 7-8 The Trinity Part 9: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: I John 5: 7-8 The Trinity "Trinity" is not found in scripture." The early church father Tertullian (about 160 to 220 AD at Carthage) first used the word. The New Testament states in a few verses that there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the issue has been over I John 5: 7-8 which is one of the most disputed pair of verses in the New Testament. I John 5: 7-8: Textus Receptus Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes en to ourano o pater o logo kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi trei en eisin 8 kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge to pneuma kai to udor kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin I John 5: 7-8: Westcott-Hort Greek: oti treis eisin oi marturountes 8 to pneuma kai to udor kai to aima kai oi treis ei to en eisin Even if you can't read Greek, you can see that the Westcott-Hort text leaves out many words. I John 5: 7-8: King James Version: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." I John 5: 7-8 in the American Standard Version: "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one." Its not real clear in the American Standard Version that I John 5: 7-8 is talking about the Trinity, which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In the King James Version Christ is called the Word. The Revised Standard version just says "There are three that testify. the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." The NIV says "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood: and the three are in agreement." And the Douay-Rheims says: " And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." The Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the Textus Receptus and King James. But don't think that this agreement has any significance for that Church being true to the Lord and his word. Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation both have the full wording of the Textus Receptus and King James. Its interesting that the Douay-Rheims has a clearer statement of the doctrine of the trinity than the modern translations from Westcott-Hort. But the problem is that the King James wording for I John 5: 7-8 is said by the followers of Westcot-Hort not to exist in early Greek texts. The NIV Study Bible says that I John 5:7 "...is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century." This below is taken from: http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.or...n/fbcdoesa.htm "It is not true that I John 5:7 is absent in all pre-16th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for I John 5:7f from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that I John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost." Jerome, who created the Catholic Latin Vulgate complains in his work Prologue to the Canonical Epistles that the complete wording of I John 5:7 was taken out of Greek manuscripts which he had seen. He says: "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices." On Defense of the Johannine Comma it says ", conditions were favourable for the Greek witness to have been altered by Arian heretics in the 4th century who sought to expunge the overt Trinitarian witness of the Comma...It is very well possible that even the Byzantine tradition was corrupted by the Arian heretics of the East in the 4th-5th centuries, and that the Eastern Emperors such as Constantius who came under the Arian heresy consciously sought to remove the Comma from the witness of the Greek scriptures of the East. This could answer the question why the Comma is missing from the bulk of the Greek manuscript tradition, but yet is evidenced in other traditions such as those of the Old Latin and the Syriac." Arianism - from Arius - said that Jesus Christ was a created being and not God, and so the Arians in the early church period were anti-trinitarians. Frederic G. Kenyon in his 1936 book, The Story of the Bible (page 110), says that in creating his Latin Vulgate, Jerome used both the Alexandarian Greek texts, such as the Vaticanus, and the Old Latin texts. Probably the full Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8 got in some versions of the Vulgate from the Old Latin texts, if not at the time Jerome created his Vulgate, then at a somewhat later time. Scholars of the Bible, though generally not those who are followers of Westcott and Hort, say that the complete Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8 is found in at least two eighth century Greek texts, the Wizanburgensis and the Basiliensis. "The existence of Wizanburgensis from the 8th century lends credit to this idea, since it demonstrates in a concrete manner that Comma-containing Greek manuscripts existed at least that far back..." (Defense of the Johannine Comma) Basiliensis is now kept at Basel, Switzerland Codex Basiliensis (E/07). Eighth century according to Uncial Script And Wizanburgensis is in the the Dublin University Library. In his commentary on I John 5: 7 John Gill says of the mention of the text by early church fathers that it is cited "... by Fulgentius , in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian , in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200;" Athenagorus - who lived in the second century, about 177AD - says "The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?" This is in: Athenagorus, Plea for the Christians. Athenagorus talks about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and says they are three separate persons but are in union, a statement that sounds a lot likje that in I John 5: 7. He also refers to the Son as the Word. Remember that I John 5: 7 calls Christ the Word. Tertullian in about 215 AD in Adversus Praxeas has a lot to say about the Trinity. He has many partial quotes of New Testament verses. In his book, Adversus Praxeas (Against Praxeas ), Chapter Twenty-Five, he says "'And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete [Holy Spirit] makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity' refers to the unity of their substance, not the oneness of their number." He apparently does not directly quote I John 5: 7-8. See: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian | Christian Classics Ethereal Library "which three are one entity" sounds like I John 5: 7 Cyprian, another North African bishop, cites the verse in about 250 AD saying: " The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"55 (55) - Cyprian, De Unit. Eccl., cap. vi On the web site http://home.carolina.rr.com/theshuecrew/wallace.html it says "Since Cyprian wrote the disputed passage in Latin I feel it necessary to list Cyprian's words in Latin. Cyprian wrote, "Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt." (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7; "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt." Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--"And the three are One." His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of 'hi'...There is no other verse that expressly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 'three in one' outside of 1 John 5:7." The "Old Latin" text is not Jerome's Vulgate, but an earlier Latin Bible used by the Waldenses and others in Europe. This is apparently from the Treatises of Cyprian who lived from about 200 to 258 AD. He is saying that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one, not meaning that the Godhead is made up only of one person, but that the three persons of the Godhead are united in agreement. The statement of the NIV that the Spirit, the water and the blood are in agreement is not nearly as clear that it is referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Finally, Augustine (354-430 AD) says "I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, "There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one." Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, "the three are one:" ."60 (60) - Augustine, Contra Maximinium, Lib. II, cap. xxii.3; Augustine was more clearly a Catholic than Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus or Tertullian, and I would not recommend some of Augustine's teachings. But we can still use his testimony in his time about the existence of the full Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8. The shortening of I John 5: 7-8 in the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 down to an unclear statement about the Spirit, the water and the blood being in agreement may be consistent with second and third century AD gnostic doctrines about Jesus Christ. Many gnostics thought that the Christ was an Aeon created by the Eternal Father, who was a spirit, but not the God of the Bible. Arius specifically taught that Christ was a created being and not God. We don't have proof that gnostics or followers of Arius changed the wording of I John 5: 7-8. But there are many other omissions and changes in the Westcott-Hort Greek text that seem to agree with gnostic theology. The more verse changes we find that are in agreement with gnosticism the more support there is for the idea of gnostic changes in the Bible. But the followers of Westcott and Hort will probably not accept that as decisive proof. Neither would they accept as decisive proof quotes of Scripture by early Church fathers or very early texts that the wordings of the Textus Receptus go back to the second or first centuries or to the originals written by the apostles. The most decisive proof that the King James Version and the Greek Textus Receptus are accepted by God as his word is the fruit these two texts have created since Erasmus published his first edition of the Textus Receptus in 1516 and the King James Version came out in 1611. I John 5: 7-8 is not the only statement of the Trinity in the New Testament. There are some verses other than I John 5: 7-8 that say there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as: Matthew 28: 19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." John 15: 26: "But when the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) is come, whom I (Jesus) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Matthew 3: 16-17: "and Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and to a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It is the Father who is speaking here. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
 |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts Six and Seven - 8:13 AM, 2/5/2012 |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts Six and Seven Bernard Pyron PART SIX Part 6: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: More On Different Wordings of Westcott-Hort Part 6 is a continuation of part 5, on the different verse wordings in the Westcott-Hort Greek text compared to that of the Textus Receptus. I Corinthians 15: 47: Textus Receptus: o protos anthropos ek ges choikos o deuteros anthropos o kurios ex ouranou I Corinthians 15: 47: Westcott-Hort: o protos anthropos ek ges choikos o deuteros anthropos ex ouranou The Westcott-Hort Greek text leaves out "o kurios," the Christ. This is fairly easy Greek. "O protos" is the first. "Anthropos" is man, the Greek word from which we get our anthropology, the study of man. "Ek ges" is out of earth. "Choikos," is made of dust. "O deuteros anthropos" is the second man. The Textus Receptus has at the end of the sentence "o kurios ex ouranou," the Lord out of heaven. But the Westcott-Hort text says at the end of the sentence only "ex ouranou," out of heaven. The literal translation of the entire sentence in the Westcott-Hort might say "The first man (is) out of earth, made of dust, the second (is) man out of heaven." The Westcott-Hort wording does not say who this second man is. the Textus Receptus identifies the second man as the Lord, and Christians know that this is Jesus Christ. For I Corinthians 15: 47 the King James Version says: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven." The American Standard Version (1901) for I Corinthians 15: 47 has: "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven." As expected, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard and the NIV all follow the Westcott-Hort Greek text and leave out Lord. The Catholic Douay-Rheims also leaves out Lord. Following the Textus Receptus the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation contain Lord. According to the web site Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament the only Greek texts that omit Lord are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. Lord is in most Byzantine texts as well as the Alexandrinus. The papyrus fragment p46 replaces "the Lord" with "the spiritual" (pneumatikos). Remember that I Corinthians 15: 45, just a couple of verses before verse 47, says "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the second Adam was made a quickening spirit." Paul in I Corinthians 15:45 says Christ as the second Adam was a quickening spirit. Jesus Christ was incarnated in the flesh of sinful man so that he could save those who accepted him and his truth from the sentence of death (II Corinthians 1: 9). Romans 5: 21 states that "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto everlasting life by Jesus Christ our Lord." And in Philippians 3: 9 Paul wants "...to be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Christ as the second Adam paid the price for our sins when as fully God he took on human flesh and died on the cross. As the replacement of Adam as the head of his people, he gives to us, on faith, his righteousness, so that we might come to be on the right side of the plumb line of Amos (7: 7-8). And Christ as the second Adam at his appearing will give us a body and a likeness somewhat like his own. I John 3: 2 promises "...we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Leaving the word Lord out of I Corinthians 15: 47 could weaken faith in the promises that Jesus Christ as the second Adam has made to his people. The omission of Lord, which identifies the second Adam as Jesus Christ to Christians, fits with some gnostic ideas. Many gnostics of the second and third centuries thought that man had a physical nature (soul) and a spiritual nature. His spiritual nature was corrupted by being in the dark and evil material world created by the Demiurge. The spiritual, part of man could be liberated by gnosis - knowledge or insight - and might join the Eternal Father in the spiritual realm. This gnostic Eternal Father is not a personal being, but is some kind of spiritual force (Daniel 11:38) ; he is not the God of the Bible. In gnostic theology the Eternal Father created several spiritual beings called Aeons. The lowest of these is Sophia and she rebelled because of her low status and created the Demiurge who in turn created the evil material world which corrupts the spiritual side of man. Then, in some gnostic teachings, Sophia gave men, or some men, a spark of spirituality to defy the evil demiurge. Another Aeon, the Christos or the Christ of the gnostics, was sent into the world to bring gnosis or secret knowledge to some men. He did not die to atone for our sins, and in gnostic theology sin is not a problem. Man, or some men, have a spark of spirituality or "god-nature" in them, and secret knowledge can develop this spark and liberate them from bondage to the material world. Though the gnostics used some of the terminoloy of Christianity, their theology was really quite different from Biblical doctrine. Removing the Lord, referring to Jesus Christ, from I Corinthians 15: 47 could make the verse appear consistent with gnostic doctrine for the gnostics and for a few Christians who were taken in by this deception. If some gnostic influenced scribes did make this change to omit Lord in a few New Testament copies duiring the two centuries before the Alexandrian Vanticanus and Sinaiticus were copied out in the ny changes like this in the Westcott-Hort Greek text are in line with gnostic teachings, this is some evidence for the idea that gnostics changed a few copies of Scripture. It may not be seen as decisive proof to the followers of Westcott and Hort though. If the second Adam is not identified as Jesus Christ, the gnostics might have placed some doubt on the gospel itself which may be the effect they desired. The omission of Lord in this verse could throw it into partial ageement with the gnostic teaching of the Apocryphon of John, part of the Nag Hammadi manuscript find, that the first Adam was created with soul (psyche), and the second Adam was created with spirit (pneumatos). Maybe the omission of Lord in I Corinthians 15: 47 could be read as supporting the gnostic teaching that the first man, the psychical, was an earthly creation of the Demiurge, but that the second man, who had pneuma or the spiritual, was from heaven, because in the Gnostic system, all spirituality came from the Eternal Father and from heaven. The change from "the Lord" to "the spiritual" in the papyrus fragment p46 could also help change this verse from a Christian to a gnostic view. But the change from a Christian to a gnostic view is not found consistently in the Westcott-Hort Greek text; this kind of change is not found in all verses dealing with the deity and incarnation of Christ. It is found is many verses, enough to justify taking a close look at the possibility that gnostics tampered with some verses of the New Testament. Perhaps if gnostics actually did change some verses in some copies of Scripture, the effect of this change was to create doubt in the minds of Christians using the new translations about the Christian doctrines. Over time this doubt could grow into apostasy. It looks like some in the Christian churches may have become hungry for spiritual experience because they are not being led into it in most of the churches - and so get into a kind of gnostic spiritual experience that masquerades as authentic Holy Spirit inspiration. The Holy Spirit works through Scripture to bring us its truth, and if the new translations from the Westcott-Hort are too abbreviated and under some influence of the gnostics, then the Holy Spirit would not work through these versions as he has done with the Textus Receptus and KJV. II Corinthins 4: 6: Textus Receptus: oti o theos o eipwn ek skotous phws lampsai os elampsen en tais kardiais emwn pros phwtismon ths gnoseos tes doxes tou theou en proswpps iesou christou II Corinthians 4: 6: Westcott-Hort: oti o theos o eipwn ek skotous phws lampsei os elampsen en tais kardiais emwn pros phwtismon ths gnoseos tes doxes tou theou en proswpps christou "Iesou" or Jesus is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The King James version for II Corinthians 4: 6 says "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." In accord with the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard version and the NIV omit Jesus. But the American Standard version and the New revised Standard do have Jesus, in agreement wioth the Textus Receptus. The Dopuay-Rheims, the Young's Literal translation and Green's translation all have Jesus. Jesus is not found for II Corinthians 4: 6 in the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus (5th century), and in Southern Coptic (Egyptian) Greek texts. It is found in almost all other Greek texts. Leaving out Jesus is in agreement with the gnostic separation of the earthly "Jesus" from the heavenly "Christ." The followers of Julius Cassianus said the body of Jesus was only an illusion and not real, a teaching based on the gnostic belief that matter is evil. For the gnostics Christ or the Christos, but not Jesus, came to free man from bondage to the material world and to become part of the spiritual world of the Eternal Father. Galatians 6: 17: Textus Receptus: tou loipou kopous moi medeis parechetw ego gar ta stigmata tou kuriou ihsou en to somati mou bastazo Galatians 6: 17: Westcott-Hort: tou loipou kopous moi medeis parechetw ego gar ta stigmata tou ihsou en to somati mou bastazo "Lord" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The King James Version says for Galatians 6: 17 that "From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." The American Standard version, the New American Standard, the New revised Standard and the NIV all leave out "Lord," following Westcott-Hort. But the Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and the Green translation all have "Lord Jesus." The Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and papyrus p46 omit "Lord" according to Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament The Byzantine Greek texts all have "Lord." Gnostics tried to make a distinction between the "Lord", meaning God, and the earthly Jesus. For the gnostics the Aeon they called the Christ from the spiritual world would not be called "Jesus." In addition, for gnostics, especially the Docetist variety, the spiritual "Lord" who had no real physical body, would not have left marks on Paul. Again, the omission of "Lord" seems to fit gnostic theology. PART SEVEN Part 7: Riders of the Wrecking Machine; Last of Westcott-Hort Wordings Part 7: Riders of the Wrecking Machine; Last of Westcott-Hort Wordings This comparision of Greek texts involves the Westcott-Hort verses the Textus Receptus, or the Alexandarian text versus the Byzantine text. In part, on the basis of New testament papyri more recent than the fourth century Alexandarian texts used by Westcott-Hort, Bible scholars have distinguished several New Testament text types which have distinctive wordings. In addition to the Alexandarian and Byzantine text types, focused on here, there is the Western type text, used in Italy, Gaul and in parts of North Africa. On http://legacy.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html they say of the Byzantine type text that "It is called Byzantine because it was adopted in Constantinople and used as the common text in the Byzantine world. It was produced in Antioch, Syria, under the direction of Lucian near the beginning of the fourth century and has been called the Syrian or Antiochene text. It was used almost universally after the eight century. Both Erasmus, who created the first printed Greek text, and the translators of the King James Version of the Bible used this type of text. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is from two Alexandarian texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth century. On The Greek Text of the New Testament they say that "The modern versions are based mainly upon a Greek New Testament which was derived from a small handful of Greek manuscripts from the 4th century onwards. Two of these manuscripts, which many modern scholars claim to be superior to the Byzantine, are the Sinai manuscript and the Vatican manuscript (c. 4th century). These are derived from a text type known as the Alexandrian text (because of its origin in Egypt)... These two manuscripts form the basis of the Greek New Testament, referred to as the Critical Text, which has been in widespread use since the late 19th century. There are many problems of omission which characterize this Greek New Testament. Verses and passages which are found in the writings of Church Fathers from around 200 to 300 A.D. are missing in the Alexandrian Text manuscripts which date from around 300 to 400 A.D. In addition, these early readings are found in manuscripts in existence from 500 A.D. onwards. An example of this is Mark 16.9-20: this passage is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the 2nd century, and is in almost every manuscript of Mark's Gospel from 500 A.D. onwards. It is missing in two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinai and the Vatican. This is but one of many examples of this problem. There are many words, verses and passages which are omitted from the modern versions but which are found in the Traditional or Byzantine Text of the New Testament, and thus in the Textus Receptus. The Critical Text differs from the Textus Receptus text 5,337 times, according to one calculation. The Vatican manuscript omits 2,877 words in the Gospels; the Sinai manuscript 3,455 words in the Gospels. These problems between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text are very important to the correct translation and interpretation of the New Testament. Contrary to the contention of supporters of the Critical Text, these omissions do affect doctrine and faith in the Christian life. Several examples of doctrinal problems caused by the omissions from the Critical Text follow. This is by no means an exhaustive list. The modern reconstructed Critical Text. * omits reference to the Virgin Birth in Luke 2.33 * omits reference to the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3.16 * omits reference to the deity of Christ in Romans 14.10 and 12 * omits reference to the blood of Christ in Colossians 1.14" Here is the last of the verse wording comparisons involving the Westcoltt-Hort and the Textus Receptus: Ephesians 3: 9: Textus Receptus: kai photisai pantas tis e koinonia tou musteriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo tw ta panta ktisanti dia ihsou christou Ephesians 3: 9: Westcott-Hort: kai photisai tis e oikonomia tou musthriou tou apokekrummenou apo ton aionon en to theo to ta panta ktisanti Literally the Textus Receptus says: "and to enlighten all about the fellowship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the God, who all things created by Jesus Christ." But the Westcott-Hort Greek text says "and enlighten about the stewardship of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in the God who created all things." Instead of the "photisai pantas e koinonia" of the Textus Receptus the Westcott-Hort says "photisai tis e okonomia." Westcott-Hort leave out "pantas," or "all" and have "okonomia" instead of "koinonia." Okonomia means something like stewardship while koinonia means fellowship, people having something in common, and for the Apostles and all Christians, being together on one path to Christ. OK. The King James Version for Ephesians 3: 9 says: "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:" "Men" has been added in the King James. But the King James does follow the Textus Receptus and say "fellowship" of the mystery. It is going to be interesting to see what the various translations do with this verse. We are very likely to see that the new Bible versions which are obedient to the Westcott-Hort Greek text wording will leave out Jesus, Christ, or both words, Jesus Christ. The American Standard Version of 1901 says for Ephesians 3: 9 that "and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;" Then, the New American Standard says: "and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;" The New Revised Standard says: "men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;" And the NIV for Ephesians 3: 9 says "and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things." The Catholic English Bible, the Douay-Rheims, says for Ephesians 3: 9 that " And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:" What I have seen so far of the verses of the Catholic Douay-Rheims suggests it has mixed wordings, some close or almost identical to the Textus Receptus and King James and some close or idential to the Westcott-Hort and the NIV.. Young's Literal Translation says: "and to cause all to see what [is] the fellowship of the secret that hath been hid from the ages in God, who the all things did create by Jesus Christ." Green's translation says: "and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ;" The American Standard, the New American Standard, the Revised Standard, the NIV and the Douay-Rheims talk about the "dispensation" or "administration" of the mystery that has been hidden for ages in God. But the translations loyal to the Textus Receptus - the King James, the New King James, the Young's and the Green translation - write about the "fellowship" of the mystery hidden for the ages in God. There is a difference in meaning between a fellowship of the mystery and the administration or dispensation of the mystery. In his commentary on Ephesians 3: 9 John Gill has this to say: "Or "the dispensation of the mystery" as the Complutensian, and several copies, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions, read. The mystery is the Gospel; the fellowship of it is the communication of grace by it, a participation of the truths and doctrines of it, communion with Father, Son, and Spirit, which the Gospel calls and leads unto..." Gill goes on to say that " Now men are naturally in the dark about these things, and the ministry of the word is the means of enlightening them, and is indeed the grand design of it; and the ministers of the Gospel do instrumentally enlighten persons, though it is God only that does it efficiently; and for this, gifts of grace were bestowed upon the apostle, even for the enlightening of all men, not every individual person in the world, but some of all sorts,..." Matthew Henry on Ephesians 3: 9 says "The holy angels, who look into the mystery of our redemption by Christ, could not but take notice of this branch of that mystery, that among the Gentiles is preached the unsearchable riches of Christ..." According to the web site Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament the only Greek texts which contain the wording close to the Westcott-Hort - leaving out "Jesus Christ" and saying only that God created all things - is found in the papyrus fragments p46, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. We can be pretty sure that Westcott and Hort got their wording for Ephesians 3: 9 from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Leaving out "by Jesus Christ" in Ephesians 3: 9 removes from these New Testament copies of the verse the important doctrine that Jesus Christ created all things. I know that the Westcott-Hort for Colossians 1: 16 has "oti en auto ektisthe ta panta en tois ouranois kai epi tes ges ta orata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kuriothtes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai." This wording is the same as in the Textus Receptus, saying "oti en auto ektisthe ta panta ta en tois ouranois kai ta epi ths ges ta orata kai ta aorata eite thronoi eite kuriothtes eite archai eite exousiai ta panta di autou kai eis auton ektistai." The King James translates this as : " For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." And the NIV has for Colossians 1: 16: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." "He" refers back to "the Son" in Colossians 1: 13, and Christ is mentioned in verse 8, and our Lord Jesus Christ in verse 3. If there were theological reasons for changing some copies of verses of the New Testament, whoever did the changing probably knew altering all verses dealing with a major New Testament doctrine would be rejected by almost all Christians. Lets get back to looking at the possibility that changes in the wordings of some copies of the New Testament are in agreement with gnostic theology. Leaving out "Jesus Christ" and saying instead that God created all things does less damage to that theology than saying Jesus Christ is the creator.. Gnostics thought that since the Christ was a spiritual "emanation" from the Eternal Father, he was totally removed from the material creation. To the gnostics, the Christ as an Aeon entered our material world only as a spiritual being to bring enlightenment and liberation to a few from the evil material universe. Christ, to gnostics, would not have created the material world. Gnostics taught that the evil Demiurge created the material world. I Thessalonians 2: 19: Textus Receptus: tis gar emon elpis e chara e stephanos kauchseos e ouchi kai umeis emprosthen tou kuriou emon ihsou christou en te autou parousia I Thessalonians 2: 19: Westcott-Hort: tis gar emon elpis e chara e stephanos kauchseos e ouchi kai umeis emprosthen tou kuriou emon ihsou en th autou parousia Westcott-Hort leave out "christou," Christ. In the King Kames Version, I Thessalonians 2: 19 reads, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" The American Standard Version, the New American Standard, the New Revised Standard, the NIV leave out "Christ," and say "Lord Jesus." But the Catholic Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation have the full Textus Receptus wording of "Lord Jesus Christ." The gnostics made a distinction between the earthly Jesus who was in human flesh and the spiritual Christ, who - they thought - would not take on human flesh. Leaving "Christ" out of this verse would seem to make it consistent with gnostic theology. But Paul in I Thessalonians 2: 19 says the "Lord Jesus Christ" will appear again and when he does we will be with him, or in his presence. Saying only that the "Lord Jesus" will appear and we will be before him weakens the great promise of the appearing of God. If Jesus were not fully God, he could not have satisfied the charge against us sinners on the cross. Only God could have redeemed us. The Westcott-Hort Greek text and its English translations usually do not change all verses in the New Testament which present specific doctrines, but many such verses are changed, as compared to the Textus Receptus and KJV. But what Paul says in I Corinthians 5: 6, "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" applies to the Westcott-Hort and its English versions. We will see later that for certain doctrines which are presented in only one verse, that the Westcott-Hort comes up with statements that are so abbreviated that the doctrine is really not stated, the doctrine is lost in the wording, or the verse in the Textus Receptus is left out. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts One to Five - 7:59 AM, 2/5/2012 |
Riders of The Wrecking Machine: Nine Part Series On The Textus Receptus-King James and the Westcott-Hort-NIV and Other Recent Versions: Parts One to Five Bernard Pyron Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Part One: Fruit of the King James Version The Greek text of Desiderius Erasmus (1467-1536) - The Textus Receptus - was in large part what inspired the Protestant Reformation. Erasmus published five editions of the Textus Receptus, in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535. The English King James Version used in large part later editions of the Textus Receptus. The First Fruit of the Greek text created from five to ten Byzantine Greek texts by Erasmus was the Reformation itself. Martin Luther's German Bible, important for the Reformation, appeared in 1634. Luther used the Second Edition of the Erasmus Textus Receptus for his German New Testament, which he translated before the Old Testament. The King James Version has been used by English speaking peoples for almost four hundred years and has brought many to salvation. It was used in many great revivals. Gerald R. McDermott says of the 18th century Great Awakening that "Yet within a decade the greatest evangelical awakening since the Reformation broke out across America, England and the Continent. By the time it subsided, the political and social cultures of the Anglo-American world had been forever changed. Christian values had left their mark on the world beyond the church." That was fruit of the King James Version in action. There were two large 18th century revivals inspired by the King James Version, The Great Awakening in the American colonies, and the English Evangelical Revival. McDermott says "So in the 1720s and 1730s, after decades of feeling that true religion was dying, American and British evangelicals turned to prayer for such an anointing. The first answers seemed to come in 1734-35 with the Connecticut River Valley revivals, led by Jonathan Edwards' congregation at Northampton, Mass. Then the same pattern appeared elsewhere. Days of fasting and prayer preceded revivals at Gloucester, Halifax, and Middleborough, Mass. The first signs of revival at Portsmouth, N.H. and at Wrentham, Mass., appeared during fast-day services. And in August 1743 Rev. John Sutherland in Golspie, Scotland, started three prayer groups to pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. A year later, revival fell. Seventy people were converted in his church alone." Jonathan Edwards was very likely using the King James. McDermott goes on to say that "George Whitefield was the catalyst for the largest explosion of religion in 1740. A mere 24 years old, he preached more than 175 sermons in a 45-day whirlwind tour of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Most of his sermons were preached to immense crowds; his farewell sermon in Boston was heard by 20,000." "But if some clergymen were responsible for first sharing the news, it was the laity who took the message and ran to their neighbors. Unlike awakenings in previous centuries, the 18th-century awakening was propelled primarily by laymen, not clergymen. Even Edwards, the awakening's first great leader, said the momentum came from below, especially young people, whose "lay testifyings" produced a "great noise" that was heard throughout the region." "The revivalists believed the Holy Spirit's presence would be palpably manifest. Edwards believed that the Spirit could be discerned, that he moved a congregation "by a mighty invisible power," and he sometimes caused a "visible commotion." The above is from: http://www.christianword.org/revival/wakeup.html Some historians say that the Great Awakening of the 1734-1740 period had such an impact upon the culture of colonial America that the colonists had the backbone to take on the British, who had the top Navy and Army in the world. In England, John Wesley (1703-1791), founder of Methodism, preached many sermons and led tens of thousands to Christ with the King James Bible. Francis Asbury (1745-1816), one of Wesley's contemporaries, carried the King James Version thousands of miles throughout the U.S. in his saddlebags and saved thousands. David Brainard (1718-1747), brought it to the American Indians. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) preached the KJV to millions more There was what is called a Second Great Awakening in New England, Kentucky, Tennessee and in other states from about 1800 to 1830. This great revival was started by the preaching of James McGready in Logan county, Kentucky in 1800. Charles G. Finney held revivals from 1824 to 1837 in New York state. This Second Great Awakening lasted about 30 years. In 1800 to 1830 American Christians were almost all using the King James Version. The first copy of the King James Bible known to have been brought into the colonies was taken by John Winthrop to Massachusetts in 1630. Gradually the King James Bible replaced the Geneva Bible among the New England Puritans and became the one English Bible of Americans until late in the 19th century. Teaching and Learning: American Religions to 1870: American Religions to 1870 Website Visuals And so the King James Version was used for the two great revivals in America, the first from about 1734 to 1740, and the second in 1800 to 1830. These revivals - which put the stamp of the King James Version on American culture of the 18th and 19th centuries - were not the only fruit of the KJV among English speaking peoples. Millions in England,South America, Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and elsewhere have been convicted of sin and saved by preaching from and personal reading of the KJV. Christians in England had sent out missionaries who used the KJV and translations of it into native languages to convert many people over the world. Following the second Great Awakening, the American world wide missionary movement continued. J. Hudson Taylor was the first American missionary to inland China in 1865. Tape Six: The Secret Society at the Church of Philadelphia Since then, thousands of American missionaries have gone to foreign lands, carrying the KJV, to "Go thee therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)" Those who defend the new Bible versions might argue that Billy Graham"s preaching has led many to salvation, and he promotes the NIV. But they paint themselves into a corner if they bring up Billy Graham. He had an emotional appeal, but he made too many statements opposed to Bible doctrines. In addition, while Graham was holding his crusades, belief in the Bible was declining, America was moving farther into a post- Christian culture, gnostic mysticism was sometimes posing as Holy Spirit spiritual experiencing, the New Age Occult religion got going after about 1968 and even Christians were acting more and more in immoral ways. Can the advocates of the new Bible versions, based on the Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text, claim to have produced the same kind and same amount of fruit produced by the Textus Receptus and the King James Version? Its true that the New International Version has been around less than thirty years. The New American Standard came out in 1971, and the Revised Standard in 1952. But the English Revised Version was published in 1881 and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version in 1901, enough time to generate some fruit. Have these versions produced fruit comparable to the KJV? On Chapter 1 it is said that "...the fundamental difference between the New Testament in the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Today's English Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, etc., on the one hand, and in the AV (King James Version) and NKJV on the other is that they are based on different forms of the Greek text. (There are over 5,500 differences between those two forms." The NKJV may be based on the Textus Receptus instead of Westcott-Hort but it also has problems in its doctrines and in the way it states them. PART TWO Part Two: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, Westcott and Hort Versus the Textus Receptu Part Two: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, Westcott and Hort Versus the Textus Receptus and KJV CREATORS AND DRIVERS OF THE WRECKING MACHINE Two 19th century English professors created the new Greek text which became the basis for almost all the new Bible versions. These were: Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901, professor of divinity at Cambridge. With F. J. A. Hort, he published The New Testament in the Original Greek (2 vol., 1881) Fenton J. A. Hort 1828-1892, was also a Professor at Cambridge In 1881 when Westcott and Hort published their Greek text, the English Revised Version of the New Testament was published, based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, instead of the Textus Receptus. Westcott and Hort used two main Greek texts as their sources for their Greek text: THE VATICANUS: The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was written in the 4th century. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation. THE SINIATICUS: Siniaticus is a manuscript which was found in 1844 by Constantin (von) Tischendorf on a trash pile outside the walls of St. Catherine's Monastery, at the base of what some believe is the mountain where Moses was given the Ten Commandments, Mount Sinai. The riders of the Wrecking machine are the followers of the seminary trained professional Christians who have promoted the new Bible versions. Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in this world. The reference (1881) above is: B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881, and Introduction and Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892). In it Hort gives the theories, or assumptions, they used as the basis for selecting the Greek texts.. But the problem with starting from the assumption that the Bible is just like any other old book is that the meaning of Scripture is given by the Holy Spirit. And if a textual critic does not have the Holy Spirit, he is likely to make mistakes in handing the word of God. John 16: 13 says "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." Westcott and Hort did not believe in many of the teachings of the Old and New Testaments and very likely were not inspired by the Spirit. John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England during the late 19th century said the following about the inclusion of a Unitarian on the 1881 Revision Committee led by Westcott & Hort that: "But even if the Unitarian [Vance Smith] had been an eminent Scholar, my objection would remain in full force; for I hold (and surely so do you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be invoked by faithful prayer." The 1881 committee's purpose was to consider the issue of revising the King James translation. Dean Burgon and F. H. Scrivener lost their battle with Westcort and Hort over the revision of the King James Version. Textual criticism is concerned with finding errors in texts. Supposedly, the goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to recreate, as closely as possible, the original writings of the apostles. This is the smokescreen that Westcott and Hort used to pull off their great swindle. They managed to establish as a basis for translation a Greek text based on Alexandarian manuscripts which dilute, abbreviate leave out, and cast doubt upon many New testament doctrines and teachings. Westcott and Hort set out to discredit the Textus Receptus. And before they began to create the machine to wreck the Textus Receptus, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), an earlier textual critic, published some critical rules for accepting or rejecting New Testament wordings. One of Griesback's critical rules was that "the hardest reading is best." Another was"the shorter reading is best, based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete. These are really assumptions which have little if any empirical evidence to support them. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in the 1881 edition of their Greek New Testament also proposed critical rules, including the rule, or assumption, that the shorter reading is best, meaning it is assumed to be closer to the original writing of the apostles. In part, with this and other assumptions,Westcott and Hort justified to their many followers the undermining of the text of the King James Version and the Textus Receptus. In time the substitution of their 1881 Greek text for the Textus Receptus led mainstream evangelicals to turn to the new translations and reject the King James Version. A summary of the assumptions of Westcott and Hort that they used to select the Alexandrian Greek texts and reject the Textus Receptus can be found in the book by Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/King James/believes_westcott_hort.htm The stuff below is from this link: ASSUMPTIONS OF WESTCORT AND HORT: 1. Earlier Greek manuscripts are closer to the original writings of the Apostles 2. A scribe usually went about blending the texts available to him trying to make improvements to the text; This is what they call conflation. 3. Older manuscripts have fewer corruptions. 4. Shorter readings are preferred. 5. More awkward sentence grammar is preferred. Westcott and. Hort claimed that a shorter reading of a New Testament verse is closer to the original autograph and should be used in translation. But what they did, in effect, was set up their critical rules to reject many longer verse readings in the Textus Receptus and accept the shorter readings of the Alexandrian Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They rationalized this rule by claiming a shorter reading is more accurate because of the assumed blending together of two or more different shorter Greek verses practiced by the scribes. The scribes, they assumed, merged verse wordings from different Greek texts into one new reading. But typists, or ancient scribes who copied manuscripts by hand, it would seem, are more likely to leave out words than they are to add words to merge two different versions of a Bible verse into a new verse. In the theory they concocted to justify their use of the Alexandrian Greek texts, Westcott and Hort implied that Christian scribes had deliberately changed some verses of the Scriptures. But the problem with their Greek text is that some verses, different in wording from the Textus Receptus, appear to be in agreement with gnostic theology, which existed in Alexandria, Egypt at the about the time the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came into existence. The main assumption of Hort in his Introduction and Appendix (1882) to the Westcott-Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881) was that the Textus Receptus was a late Greek text and therefore not as close to the original writings of the apostles as the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. A key part of Hort's theory was his argument on the lateness of the Byzantine text which was used to create the Textus Receptus. To treat the Scriptures as any other book means that Westcott and Hort and their followers who ride their Wrecking Machine (1) ignored the reality of Satan who tries to change God's Word (2) had little faith in God's promise to preserve His Word. Since Satan has tried to inspire scribes and theologians to change the word of God, we might expect to find that some copies of the New Testament were changed to support gnostic or other false doctrines - at least some changes were made. Large changes in doctrines might have been rejected even by Christians in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries and so the changes had to be subtle. In II Corinthians 2:17 Paul says "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." Colwell,(1952), who once was a follower of Westcott and Hort, but who changed his position, says that: "The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position as 'Bible.' The reverse is the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed ... most variations, I believe, were made deliberately. ... scholars now believe that most variations were made deliberately"4 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), pp. 53, 58 & 49. J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, warned what would happen if the liberals gain control of the evangelical churches. They would retain the name and some of the trappings of genuine Christianity but the substance would be lost. The liberals, or academics, who, for the most part, do not have the Holy Spirit, and do not believe all the teachings of the Bible, have not only taken over the evangelical churches, they have also taken over the seminaries that train the preachers. The Declension of American Revivalism Apparently the Church of England theologians, Westcott and Hort, would have qualified as liberals. PART THREE Part 3: Riders of the Wrecking Machine, KJV Wordings KJV HAS ARCHAIC LANGUAGE, SO SAY ITS ENEMIES Many seminary trained people say the 17th century English of the King James is not understandable. There are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, such as suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, But the meaning of these words can be understood, sometimes by the context in which they are used. Suffer means to allow something to occur. Filthy lucre is money. Wax is grow, and charity is the translation of agape love. It meaning is not limited to doing work for someone for free. 2 John 10 is one example some opponents of the King James use as an example, which reads: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (KJV). "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him" (NIV). D. A. Carlson says "The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians...For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' " (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102) But some King James Version people say: The King James enemies are also wrong on its Elizabethian English. After nearly four centuries, so little can be found to be archaic. Certainly there are "profound differences" between current and Elizabethan English. But, the language of the King James is not exactly Elizabethan English! As a comparison will show, there is a great difference between King James English and the wordy, complex and often ambiguous Elizabethan style. The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized Version! "The King James Version was a model for the development of the English language. Its elegant but simple style had an influence on English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the King James English is more alive and explicit while most other literary-type texts from that period are more difficult to read. The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. The King James Version owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of people you, because we use you to address a single individual. Here is the beginning of the preface to the KJV written by the KJV translators: "Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience." This is not the writing style the KJV translators used for their translation. The words of the King James version are often more lucid than those of the NIV. The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more exact. The style of the preface is more ambiguous to a modern reader, though it has some interesting points. Cavil they say "if it do not find a hole, will make one," for example. Cavil means to find a fault in something without good reason, to quibble. The advocates of the new translations say the King James Version is flawed for modern readers because of its archaic language. And they say that the new translations with their modern English have all the doctrines of the Bible. ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally has shorter wordings. I will show this later with such texts as I John 5: 7-8 as examples. Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus. In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought that is presented only in a very brief way. I know that sometimes we can communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other ideas. A person who at first knows little of New Testament doctrines should be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part, this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King James. So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the King James, a person wanting to learn New Testament teachings can learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in the KJV than from the shorter verses of the new versions. The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV. This is really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments. Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated. Here again, the longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process. Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and weaken some New Testament doctrines. The teaching that Christ who is fully God and is always omnipresent but took on the flesh of man in the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines that is played down and weakened in the new translations. This is because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The longer wording of some verses in the King James, its greater amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality. The actual individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version from the modern versions. THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES Isaiah 66: 5 "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word: your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." The English words that the King James translators chose to use in translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully believe in that word of God. The King James English words can put believers into a closer relation to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is holy. The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from sinners and those who hold false doctrines. The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher..." Hebrews 7: 26 says "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." On the other hand the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities, the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James. Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful, defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and defiled. The KJV fulfills Tyndale's wish that the final English Bible "seek in certain places more proper English" (Dore, 2nd ed, pp. 23-24). Tyndale scholar, David Daniell agrees that "the Authorized Version's scholars tended to remove the Bible safely away from daily life" (Daniell, p. xiii). To fulfill God's requirement that man, "tremble at my word," it must be recognizable as his word. A close look at words such as " unto, ought, nought, wrought, twain, holpen, shambles, wist, hath, hough, flower, and servant " gives the reader insight into some of the qualities words in the King James use to put readers into contact with the Holy Spirit's communication to us. How many have gone 'to' church, but not "unto" Christ? Although the KJV has a few special big words, like "atonement" and "remission," most of its words are shorter than those in new versions and old English Bibles. . Isaiah 49: 2 says "And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword: in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft: in his quiver hath he hid me." Isaiah 49: 2 is saying that God can give us words to speak that penetrate sharply into minds and spirit. And that is what happened to the King James translators who were inspired as they chose English words to translate those of Hebrew and Greek. Hebrews 4: 12 teaches that "...the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Are the words of the NIV as faithful to Hebrews 4: 12 as are those of the King James? Do the words of the NIV penetrate our minds, hearts and spirit to awaken us spiritually as those of the KJV do for those who fully believe? And - don't forget, that the words of the NIV may not arouse us to fully believe as well as those of the KJV. H.L. Mencken says , "The prevalence of very short words in English...[a] succinct, straightforward and simple tongue - in some of its aspects, in fact almost as a kind of baby-talk" In fact, English often does use fewer words and syllables than other languages to describe something. And it can be more lucid, explicit and specific in the meanings it conveys. I Peter 1: 23 speaks of being born again by the incorruptable word of God. The words of the King James can not only put us more easily into a spiritual contact with the Lord of glory, but the rhythms of the King James language are inspiring and help us remember scripture better. Children like the speech rhythms of the King James. Although T. S. Eliot may not have been the best Christian, he was a poet and understood language. He said that elevated writing, like that seen in the Bible, has a "...feeling for syllable and rhythm, penetrating far below the conscious levels of thought and feelings, invigorating every word" (Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries, NYC: HarperCollins, 2003, p. 223). Eliot is not talking about the writing style of the NIV, but about the King James. Albert Cook states that, "When we think of the high repute in which the Authorized Version is held by men of learning and renown, we must remember, too, that in a special sense it has been the great book of the poor and unlettered. The one book that every household was sure to possess was the Bible [KJV]...To many a poor man the English Bible has been a university, the kindly mother from whom he has drawn...a way of great speech" (The Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. 4, pp. 178-180). Again, H.L. Mencken, who was an unbeliever, has this to say about the King James: "It is the most beautiful of all the translations of the Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world...[M]any learned but misguided men have sought to produce translations...in the plain speech of everyday. But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them, for it is palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, and lovely. It is a mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of" (Paine, p. viii). Here is an unbeliever praising the King James, while many of those who say they are believers stick to the Westcott-Hort derived new versions, and do not agree with H. L. Mencken. The advocates of the Westcott-Hort Wrecking Machine call us "King James Only" people and imply that we are authoritarians. They say we want to control them. PART FOUR Part 4: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Alexandarian Gnosticism Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Alexandarian Gnosticism and the Westcott-Hort Text In order to determine the extent to which there are gnostic influences in the particular wordings of the Westcott-Hort Greek text, and in its recent English translations, some knowledge of the gnosticism of the second and third centuries A.D. is necessary. Often the omission of words and parts of sentences in the Westcott-Hort Greek and in its English translations - as compared to the Textus Receptus and the KJV - is consistent with gnostic teachings. There were different versions of gnosticism that made some use of Christian terminology and which deceived some Christians in the second and third centuries. And even a few early church fathers like Origen of Alexandria, Egypt may have been in part influenced by gnosticism. The effect of believing gnostic teachings is to bring doubt about the basic doctrines of the Bible, which must have been Satan's reason for inspiring the gnostics to hold forth as they did. Gnostics thought that the Supreme Father is remote and unknowable. He/she created supernatural beings called Aeons. One of the Aeons was Sophia - wisdom in Greek - who gave birth to the "inferior" creator being gnostics call the Demiurge. The Demiurge then created the material world gnostics said was evil, corrupt and flawed. To gnostics, the demiurge is the God of the Old Testament, seen by them as evil, rigid, and lacking in compassion. Many gnostics said the pride, ignorance and incompetence of the demiurge caused the sorry state of the world as we know it. Valentinus, a gnostic leader in Alexandria, Egypt taught that the supposedly evil physical universe was created because of a mistake by Sophia. But in Genesis 1: 4-25 God says several times that the material universe and the earth which he created was good, not evil. For the gnostics to say the physical earth and material universe are evil is an insult to God. One of the major gnostic movements was founded by Valentinus whose dates are about 100 to 153 AD. Tertullian (about 155 to 230) AD wrote a book opposed to the teachings of Valentinus, Adversus Valentinianos. Irenaeus (about 130 to 200 AD) writes about the gnosticism of Valentinus in his book Against Heresies. See Early Church Fathers for online texts of the five books of Against Heresies. Irenaeus' Against Heresies contains a number of quotes from the New Testament, many of which are identical or almost exactly the same as wordings in the King James Version. Scholars say he wrote this book in about 180 AD. Only fragments of the original Greek text of Against Heresies have survived, though one web site claims much of Book One has survived. A complete Latin translation from 380 AD has survived. There are more than one English translations of the Latin, such as that by Alexander Roberets and James Donald (1867). Esoteric or secret teachings were passed on in private by Jesus to his apostles, so says Valentinus. Valentinus quotes Luke 8: 9-10 "The knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but to the rest it comes by means of parables so that they may look but not see and listen but not understand."(Luke 8:9-10 See. Ireneus Against Heresies 1:3:1). This information is found at: Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition Also, Valentinus claims that when Paul met the risen Christ on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:9-10), he received this secret knowledge from Jesus. Valentinus says Theudas gave Valentinus the secret knowledge and that Theudas received it from the Apostles. The gnostic Valentinus taught that the scriptures are not easily understood and their truth can only be had by those who have the secret gnostic knowledge (Irenaeus Against heresies Book Three, Chapter Two, paragraph One). Valentinian gnostics thought that the secret knowledge is understood only by those who are spiritually mature. The Valentinians claimed that the gnostic knowledge is nonsense to those who are not ready to receive them. They said Paul and other Apostles only gave these teachings to those who were spiritually mature. What Valentinus and his followers created was a false religion which stole some of the terminology of Christianity. The gnostics tried to make themselves an elite caste who were the only ones having the correct knowledge which was said to be necessary to be saved at death from the evil material world. Since they were not spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they were arrogant in their assumed elite status as the sole bearers of the truth. In Revelation 2: 15 Christ says the church at Pergamos held to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which he hates. It may be that Christ hated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans because they engaged in pagan ceremonies and orgies and because they were proud in their assumed status as a religious ruling elite. Irenaeus and some other early Fathers said some of the gnostics engaged in pagan practices and did not follow Christian morals. As a movement that claimed to be a religious elite possessing secret knowledge, the gnostics were probably like the Nicolaitans in trying to rule as an elite group over others as. The lesson for us from this is that there should be no elite, no priesthood, among Christians. Valentinian gnostics made a distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. They thought the human Jesus was born as the biological son of Mary and Joseph. When he was baptized by John the Baptist, the "Spirit of the Thought of the Father" descended on him in the form of a dove, He was born of the Spirit. Brief Summary of Valentinian Theology - Valentinus and the Valentinian Tradition This account seems to suggest that the gnostics thought Jesus became fully spiritual as a savior at his baptism. Other gnostics said that the savior, who came from the spiritual world of the Eternal Father, could not have entered the material world and taken on human flesh because the material world and human flesh are evil. See: Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament The gnostics differentiated between the human Jesus and the spiritual Christ. Some said that the evil material world causes a corruption of the spiritual state and so Christ as pure spirit could not become human flesh in the material world. Those of the gnostic movements who followed the Docetism of Julius Cassianus believed that Christ was pure spirit and only appeared to be in human flesh. Arianism, as taught by Arius, said that Jesus was a created being and not God. These false teachings about Jesus Christ are also blasphemy, as is the teaching that salvation is not by the blood atonement of Christ, but by obtaining secret knowledge. And remember, for the gnostics, salvation is not being set free from the domination of sin and given eternal life with Christ. For them, salvation is liberation at death from the bondage to the material world. This implies a form of reincarnation which some gnostics taught. There is some hint that Origen (184"253 A.D), the Alexandarian Christian theologian who influenced Augustine, and the Catholics, elevated the immaterial or spiritual world far above the material world, and his opposition to the Chiliasm, or belief in a thousand year reign of the saints with Christ on the material earth, is part of this regard for the material world as being "crude." Its possible the Alxandarian gnostics influenced Origen to reject the material world more than did the earlier Church Fathers who generally held to the view that Christ would reign on the physical earth following the end of the age. Marcion (about 85 to 160 AD), another important gnostic, said Jesus was a spirit and was not in the flesh. Marcion rejected the baby stories about Jesus and on his crucifixtion and resurrection. Marcion thought the Eternal Father took pity on humanity and sent Christ, as spirit alone, to rescue some men from the material world and from the God of the Old Testament. Gnostics did not want to acknowledge that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in the material world. If it was some of the gnostics who removed words and phrases from some verses of the Greek New Testament, in the copies associated with Alexandria, Egypt then this rejection of the teaching that Christ took on human flesh could account for some of these omissions on the topics of the deity of Christ and his incarnation. The omission of some words and parts of sentences from the Alexndarian Greek texts, the Sianaticus and Vaticanus could have been the word of Christian scribes who might have been influenced to some extent by the Gnostics. But the shorter wordings of the Alexandarian type Greek manuscripts, and the omission of certain key words that is consistent with gnostic theology occurs earlier than the fourth century as shown by earlier Papyri fragments of the New Testament. See http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings, that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort. "Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism." "The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)." What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text. "Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)." "Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries." Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)." The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings." The Papyri fragments indicate that Alexandarian wordings existed prior to the fourth century - and importantly, the more recently discovered papyri going back as far as the second century show Byzantine or Textus Receptus type wordings, something which Westcott and Hort did not know. The second and third century gnostics did not accept the Genesis account saying that man and the earth degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. For the gnostics, the material world was evil from its creation. Again, this insults the Lord. There may have been some gnostics around during the first century when Paul, John and other apostles wrote. Irenaeus in Against heresies, Justin Martyr in Apologies and Hippolytus in Philosophemena all wrote abut a Simon Magnus who was a heretic and perhaps an early gnostic. Irenaeus in Against Heresies (wrote about 182-188 A.D.) devotes all of chapter 23 of Book One to Simon Magus. He said that Emperor Claudius honored Simon Magus with a statue because of his magic. Irenaeus says that Simon taught that he appeared to the Jews as the Son, to the Samaritans as the Father, and to other nations as the Holy Spirit. Tertullian in Against All Heresies (200-210 A.D) also devotes the first chapter to discussing Simon Magus. Tertullian says that Simon called himself "The Supreme Virtue", and that his successor was Menander. Tertullian also says in A Treatise on the Soul ch.34, that Simon devoted his energies to destroying the truth after Peter rebuked him. Hippolytus in The Refutation of All Heresies book 6 chapters 2-7, (225-235/6 A.D.) goes into Simon's pseudo-Platonic nonsense. In Book One Chapter 23 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus has a lot to say about Simon Magnus. He said: "Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, "But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great..." Irenaeus goes on to say " In fine, they have a name derived from Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called Simonians; and from them "knowledge, falsely so called," received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions." "They" are the followers of Simon. Here Ignatious is quoting part of I Timothy 6: 20. Irenaeus ends his discussion of Simon in saying "The successor of this man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels, whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea." Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it need NOT be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians HE RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD LEARNED. It is more probable that he carried some of the Christian ideas with him, and that he wove these into a system of his own. This system did contain some of the later germs of Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a retro-grade sect, perhaps nominally Christian, and certainly using some of the Christian terminology but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ" I Timothy 6: 20 and I John 4: 3, at least, seem to deal with the problem of gnosticism. I Timothy 6:20 says "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." "Science" is from "gnosis" and could have been translated as "knowledge." Paul might be warning Timothy to stay away from gnosticism which promotes a kind of "knowledge" that is false. Then, I John 4:3 could be warning about the gnostic teaching that Jesus Christ could not have taken on the flesh of man in the incarnation. John says "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist..." The gnostics of the second and third centuries had the spirit of antichrist. And - though there are many different kinds of gnosticism -the contemporary New Age Occult Movement is a continuation of aspects of that early gnosticism. And so it too is the spirit of antichrist. It has infiltrated some of the churches as a kind of religious mysticism that is not authentically led by the Holy Spirit. Here is the link for all five of the Irenaeus Books of Against Heresies: Early Church Fathers. PART FIVE Part 5: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Different Wordings in Westcott-Hort (one) Part 5: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: Different Wordings in Westcott-Hort (one) Discussion of the Westcott-Hort and Textus Receptus Greek texts and the English translation offspring of the Westcott-Hort in posts that are like short chapters is not very popular on Christian Chat. At least for the four parts so far, there have been few readers and few responses. But the issue of the Westcott-Hort versus the Textus Receptus remains a matter of opinion unless people are willing to read and understand posts longer than a few sentences. This is especially true for understanding which verses are left out of the Westcott-Hort, as compared to the Textus Receptus, and which verses have obviously different wordings when the two Greek texts are compared. You have to see a number of verses to get any idea about the differences between the texts, and what these differences can mean. DOCTRINE: THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST Mark 1: 1 Textus Receptus: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou uiou tou qeou Mark 1: 1 Westcott-Hort: arch tou euaggeliou ihsou cristou "uiou tou qeou" or Son of the God is left out of the Westcott-Hort text for Mark 1: 1 Mark 1: 1 King James Version: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; The American Standard Version, New American Standard, New revised Standard, NIV and Douay-Rheims all have "...Jesus Christ, the Son of God." But - the NIV for Mark 1: 1 has a footnote saying "Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God," which casts some doubt on whether this belongs in the verse. Since some gnostics would not have wanted to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, implying strongly that he is also God, the omission of "Son of God" in the Westcott-Hort and the doubt cast on it in the NIV are in line with gnostic teachings. ohn 1: 18: Textus Receptus: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote o monogenhs uios o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato John 1: 18: Westcott-Hort: qeon oudei ewraken pwpote monogenhs qeo o wn eis ton kolpon tou patro ekeino exhghsato Note that the Textus Receptus has "monogenhs uios" or only begotten Son," while the Westcott-Hort has "monogenhs geo," or only begotten God. The Greek word monogenes is a little tricky. It is Strong"s Exhaustive Concordance number 3439, where it says "from 3441, or monos, "remaining, i.e, sole or single...only." On Bible Study Online - Bible Monk for Thayer's Lexicon the definition of Strong's number 3439, or monogenes, is "single of its, kind, only..." Christ is a one of a kind begotten Son of God. He is unique as being a Son of God. Above, the transliteration of the Greek letters into Latin letters of the alphabet spells "only begotten" as "monogenhs," The "h" in the Greek alphabet it is an eta, which can also be transliterated as an e. So the word can be written also as monogenes. John 1: 18: King James Version: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1: 18: NIV: No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Young's Literal Translation has: God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare. And Green's translation has: No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. Both of these are from the Textus Receptus. Of the English translationns, one that closely follows the Westcott-Hort Greek is The New American Standard which has the "only begotten God" wording. The Greek texts that have the "only begotten God" wording are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 , p75 and four other less known texts. Most Byzantine and many other Greek texts have "Only begotten Son>" The King James, The American Standard, the Douay-Rheims, and, of course, the Young's Literal and the Green's translation all follow the Textus Receptus wording, "the only begotten Son." The change from "only begotten Son" to "only begotten God" is consistent with gnostic teaching because it does not say Jesus Christ was the son of God and existed before the incarnation. Some gnostics, especially the followers of Arius, said Jesus Christ was a created being and not fully God.. T. Holland in Crowned With Glory: The Bible From Ancient Text To Authorized Version, on page 24 (note number 30) says that in the writings of gnostics and "heretics" like Tatian, Arius and Valentinus "only begotten God" rather than "only begotten Son appears. The "only begotten God" seems to have become a kind of tradition among the gnostics. John 9: 35: Textus Receptus: hkousen o ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen autw su pisteuei ei ton uion tou theou John 9: 35: Westcott-Hort: hkousen ihsou oti exebalon auton exw kai eurwn auton eipen su pisteuei ei ton uion tou anthropou The Textus Receptus has "uion tou theou," 'Son of God, 'at the end of the sentence. But the Westcott-Hort has "tou anthropou," "son of man." John 9: 35: King James Version: Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? We might expect to find that the new Bible versions has "son of Man" instead of "Son of God." But the American Standard Version, which came out in 1901 does follow the textus Receptus and has "son of God, " and so does the Douay-Rheims, the Green and the Young's Literal translation. The New American Standard, The New Revised Standard and the NIV all follow Westcott-Hort and have "son of man." The web site Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists twenty-three Greek texts in addition to most Byzantine texts and the fifth century Alexandrinus that have the wording at the end of the sentence the Son of God. The Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66, p75, two coptic (Egyptian) texts and three others have the wording son of man. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus does refer to himself as the son of man, pointing out that he had taken on human flesh. But son of man referring to Christ is rarely used in the New Testament outside of the Gospels which quote Jesus calling himself by that name. In addition to the use of "son of man' in Hebrews 2: 6, the son of man clearly refers to Christ in Revelation 1: 13. Christ is called the Son of God many times in the four Gospels, and in John he is called Son of God more than son of man, especially if we count the number of verses which imply he is the Son of God. Christ is referred to as the Son of God several times in Acts, in Romans, in II Corinthians, Galatians,, Ephesians, implied in Philippians, and Colossians, I Thessalonians, Hebrews, II Peter, I John, II John, and in Revelation. While Jesus often called himself the son of man, his apostles writing in the New Testament books other than the four Gospels, nearly always called him the Son of God, indicating he is fully God. Gnostics sometimes called the Eternal Father the "Primal Man" or "First Man". This is part of the gnostic confusion of the godhead. Early Christians familiar with gnostic teachings might recognize this change from "Son of God" to "son of man" as being in agreement with that teaching. Acts 2: 30: Textus Receptus: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou to kata sarka anastesein ton christon kathisai epi tou thronou autou Acts 2: 30: Westcott-Hort: profhth oun uparcwn kai eidw oti orkw wmosen autw o qeo ek karpou th osphuos autou kathisai epi ton thronon autou The Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out "to kata sarka anastesein ton christon," or "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." Note that the Westcott-Hort does have "ek karpou tes osphuos," or "of the fruit of his loins." Acts 2: 30: King James Version: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Acts 2: 30: American Standard Version: Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne. Acts 2: 30: New Revised Standard: Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30: NIV: But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Acts 2: 30 is a good example of the reducton of a verse in the NIV, which is not a clear statement of the doctrine of Acts 2: 30 While the KJV, Young's Literal, and Green's translation all have "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne, " following the Textus Receptus, the other translations are closer to the Westcott-Hort Greek. The Douay-Rheims and American Standard follow Westcott-Hort in saying "of the fruit of his loins," they both omit, "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." But the NIV, the New American Standard and New Revised Standard for Acts 2: 30 leave out even more than the Westcott-Hort Greek leaves out of Acts 2: 30. None of these three translations have "of the fruit of his loins," and certainly do not have "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ." In saying God would "place one of his descendants on his throne," the NIV is not as explicit as the King James Version which says "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." It is not clear at all in the NIV that it is Christ, as one of the descendants of David, who will sit on David's throne. Acts 2: 30 points to the fulfillment of II Samuel 7: 12, God's promise to David that "...I will set up they seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom." The NIV does not seem to want to acknowledge that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit to Peter, came the knowledge that it is Jesus Christ who was to sit on the throne of David. "Thy seed" in II Samuel 7: 12 is not there identified in an explicit way to be Jesus Christ. The removal of the statement - "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" - from the Westcott-Hort and from the new translations following Westcott-Hort fits with second and third century gnostic doctrines that Christ was a purely spiritual savior from the Everlasting Father. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a physical descendant of David opposes gnostic teachings. Gnostics generally held that the Christos was an Aeon created by the Eternal Father. Also, since many of the gnostics said that the evil Demiurge, created by the Aeon Sophia, was the God of the Old Testament, the gnostics might not want to acknowledge that a prophecy from the Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament period. "According to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is not found in the Greek texts associated with Egypt, the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus. This statement is also not found in the Ephraemi Rescriptus. The Ephraemi is a mixed type Greek text from the fifth century, and is not an Alexandrian type text. Apparently, there are as many Alexandrian as Byzantine wordings of the Gospels in Ephraemi, but elsewhere in this New Testament Greek text, the Byzantine wordings outnumber the Alexandrian. The Textus Receptus wording of "according to the flesh, to raise up Christ" is found, according to Gnostic Corruptions in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament in the majority of Byzantine texts, as well as in other Greek texts. Romans 14: 10: Textus Receptus: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bhmati tou christou Romans 14: 10: Westcott-Hort: su de ti krinei ton adelfon sou h kai su ti exouqenei ton adelfon sou pante gar parasthsomeqa tw bemati tou qeou The Textus Receptus has "Christou", or Christ. But the Westcott-Hort has "geou," or God. The King James Version for Romans 14: 10 says "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Guess what? The American Standard version, the New American Standard Version, the New Revised Version, and the NIV all say we will stand before the judgment seat of God. The Douay-Rheims, the Young's Literal Translation and Green's translation say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. You might say that since Christ is God, what difference does it make to say we will stand before the judgment seat of Christ or before that of God? The problem is that Christ said in John 5: 22 that "...the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the son." Then in II Corinthians 5: 10 Paul explains that "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." In Romans 2: 16 Paul says "In that day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." I know that in Romans 2: 3 Paul says "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" We have to be suspicious of the Westcott-Hort wording of Romans 14: 10 in saying we will stand before the judgment seat of God rather than of Christ who was given the job of judgment by the Father. Many verses that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ and of his incarnation in human flesh have wordings in Westcott-Hort that agree with the gnostics. The gnostics cast doubt on the Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God and saying that judgment belongs to God rather than to Jesus Christ is in line with this gnostic doctrine. PART SIX Part 6: Riders of the Wrecking Machine: More On Different Wordings of Westcott-Hort Part Six is continued in a different post on Journal Home |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Psychologized Marxism and Its Widespread Influence On American Life and Institutions - 10:34 AM, 1/29/2012 |
Psychologized Marxism and Its Widespread Influence On American Life and Institutions Bernard Pyron Political Correctness, Cultural Marxism and Transformational Marxism refer to almost the same movement derived from Hegel, especially Marx, Freud and American personality and social psychology. The Frankfurt School, and Theodor W. Adorno's 1950 book, The Authoritarian Personality, added Freud and then American personality and social psychology to ...Hegel and Marx in creating the highly influential transformational Marxist movement in the United States. Transformational Marxism has been taught in the public schools and in our universities for many decades. Almost everyone in the U.S. who went through the public schools during the last four decades of the 20th century was exposed to transformational Marxism in some form. As a result, almost all American Baby Boomers are under some influence from this psychologized form of Marxism. Baby Boomers are usually defined as those born from 1946 until 1964, the year the birth rate began to decline. I talked on the phone a few days ago with William Caulson, who, with Carl Rogers, was one of the major founders of the encounter group movement, which made use of a form of the dialectic attitude change procedure. Caulson was on a fellowship in the Wisconsin Psychiatric Institute and associated with Carl Rogers, when I worked on the Schizophrenic project of Rogers et al in 1963. One question I asked Caulson was what is the connection between Rogers and Maslow (A.H. Maslow) and the Frankfurt School of Adorno and others. Caulson said that Maslow worked on the Authoritarian Personality Project with Adorno and others. The question is why was Carl Rogers so interested in ideas which fit in so well with the Adorno group's agenda? One possible answer is John Dewey, a significant figure in American education, who was a follower of the first experimental psychologist Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt (1832-1920) who ran the first experimental psychology lab at the University of Leipzig. Wundt was the founder of what is called the Leipzig School, which included John Dewey, a highly influential American educator, who was at Columbia University's Teachers College when Carl Rogers was a grad student there. Rogers may have absorbed some of the reductionist and anti-Christian attitudes of the Wundt Leipzig School from Dewey.... The aim of cultural Marxism, or Psychologized Marxism, was to weaken and try to destroy Christian faith. The movement started from a position saying that there is no God. But psychologized Marxism also invaded the Christian seminaries and the churches. Within Christianity, psychologized Marxism did not openly advocate atheism. Instead, it strengthened false doctrines and the use of many different Bible versions to create confusion about the authentic word of God, and above all it, taught Christians to use what Dean Gotcher calls the Diaprax, or the practice of the dialectic. Remember that Marxism got the dialectic from the German philosopher Georg Hegel......See http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm .........."In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure." Psychologized Marxism led to greater acceptance by Christians of false doctrines and the use of the new Bible versions by the promotion of the dialectic procedure of discourse between Christians. The dialectic challenges a thesis, such as the one which holds that the word of God is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It challenges any fixed doctrine in Christianity, and offers opinions, feelings and group consensus in place of "it is written." The dialectic often side steps the thesis and comes against it from the side in a deceptive way. It may also lead people to misrepresent what the Bible position is in a conversation. So, the dialectic within Christianity has been used as a way of defending and promoting false doctrines. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Transformational Marxism, the Dialectic and the Dumbing Down of America - 8:21 AM, 1/21/2012 |
Many know George Orwell's book 1984 - published in the late forties - In 1984 Orwell's main character Winston talked to his girl friend Orwell points out that the Party created reality and substituted their Writing in the late forties, George Orwell was not focused only on a future post-Christian society in which the But the propaganda procedures of non-violent Marxism and those of Nazi Orwell also wrote essays and in one he said that in Germany during the Before people such as Dean Gotcher taught about what transformational Transformational Marxism and its dialectic method of changing Opinions, feelings and group consensus building overcome accurate What results when the public school system, the universities, the In the drug movement, starting in about 1962,the "facilitators" taught This crack in the belief in an objective reality was widened by the Propagandists may appeal to the emotions and desires - because if you Carl Rogers was a clinical psychologist who taught that people lie to Abraham Maslow taught that the expression of emotions and fulfillment The debunking of intellect, cognitive ability, discernment and Psychologist Randie L. Timpe affirms this revolt against a belief in Transformational Marxism and its dialectic is a method for dumbing And those who have been dumbed down since some of the Baby Boomers "Dean Gotcher, Authority Research." |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Genesis 3 and the Dialectic - 12:43 PM, 1/11/2012 |
Genesis 3 and the Dialectic Bernard Pyron Genesis 3: 1-7 says "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast God as the Father figure, the authority, told Adam and Eve that they Lucifer, acting as the "facilitator," moved Eve out of her obedience In Genesis 3 God confronted Adam and Eve about their disobedience to The devil also tried to use his subtle methods of attitude and belief The devil's dialectic did not work on Jesus. His response was "It is But now with the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 and the Dean Gotcher has been exposing this paradigm shift and the use of the http://authorityresearch.com/File Dean Gotcher/Audio Dean Gotcher/ADORNO/Theodor Adorno.htm Dean Gotcher has a sixteen part series of audios of his lectures on In fact, this entire movement into transformational Marxism originated What Dean Gotcher has been talking about for years is not limited to Adorno and others of the Frankfurt School, such as Erick Fromm, and We might date the beginning of the paradigm shift away from absolute Transformational Marxism and the dialectic got going in the early The hippies and the drug movement as the core parts of the counterculture were anti-Christian. This anti-Christian attitude fits in with Adorno's agenda to weaken Christianity in the U.S. There were movements associated with the counterculture in the late sixties and during the seventies which not only opposed Christianity but opposed the family. That which opposes the family would fit in with Adorno's agenda. The New Age Occult movement had some connection with the counterculture, though it had origins that go back earlier than the sixties. And - the homosexual and lesbian movements associated in the seventies with the counterculture certainly opposed the family. Self psychology was also allied with the counterculture and it came right out of Adorno and transformational Marxism. The art bohemian movement, which had roots back in the 19th century, in surrealism of the early 20th century and in New York City abstract expressionism was also linked to the counterculture to some extent. It too opposed Christianity and the family. The fact that the Baby Boomers were the first generation to come under But the older generations can remember a time when two plus two was And so a politician like Ron Paul, who is not a Baby Boomer, would be The dialectic as an attitude and belief change procedure depends upon The goal of a facilitator in some Christian settings would then be to |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Simplification of New Testament On Israel - 11:29 AM, 1/7/2012 |
Simplification of the New Testament On Israel Bernard Pyron The Catholic church did not replace Israel. And the dispensationalist church is not some kind of lesser body of Christ which exists as a people of God alongside of Israel. The "church" in the New Testament, the ekklesia, is not a body of Christ different from Israel; it is a meeting or congregation of the body of Christ as Israel transformed. The Tyndale English Bible of 1524-1526 was consistent in translating ekklesia as congregation rather than as "church." God divorced physical Israel and transformed it into that spiritual house mentioned in I Peter 2:5. That part of physical Israel which was transformed into a spiritual house was the Remnant that Paul talks about in Romans 11: 5. People who were formerly Gentiles without God were grafted into Israel reborn in Christ (Romans 11: 17), so that in that spiritual house as Israel reborn there is now neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3: 28-29). The Jew who is only a Jew outwardly is no longer a true Jew, but all who are Jews inwardly are true Jews (Romans 2: 28-29) and they which are the children of the flesh (physical descendants of Abraham) but not born again in Christ are not the children of God (Romans 9: 8). " Any one, Jew or otherwise, can still come into that spiritual house of Israel transformed by beginning a relationship with Christ. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
On The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984), By Francis Schaeffer - 11:27 AM, 1/7/2012 |
On The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984), By Francis Schaeffer Bernard Pyron When I first became a Christian I began to read the books of Francis He was not a dispensationalist, but I don't remember him being His last book was The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984). Schaeffer was |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
THE Anti-Christ - 2:23 PM, 12/30/2011 |
THE Anti-Christ Bernard PyronTHE antichrist |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
On "King James Only" Christians - 1:09 PM, 12/29/2011 |
On "King James Only" Christians Bernard Pyron I posted this on a Christian forum:: "Present Day Pharisees In Their Whited Sepulchres The present day Pharisees in their whited sepulchres teach false doctrines, ridicule the "King James Only" Christians, are agents for the government of their IRS incorporated 501 c(3) churches, often teach that Christians should always obey the government, sometimes argue against that which is of faith, often make salvation appear to be an easy broad way one time event, and tend to be led by the Christian celebrities and themselves try to attain to good appearances or images as taught by the Christian Celebrity System - and in that conformity to worldliness of the Celebrity System are often deceptive. A guy on this form then asks: Here are some questions we should all ask about our own preferred translations....not just the KJV. Q1: How long has the King James version been around and what did God use for "his Word" before the KJV? Q2: Does it use clear language to the present and younger generation? Q3: Do all people speak "The 1600s King's English" or "English" in the world? How many editions and re-writes since the 1611 version are there? This should tell us all something. Would you preach KJV only to the Chinese? Q4: Is it possible that your church or upbringing has indoctrinated you into thinking that the KJV is the only acceptable translation? Q4: Is the KJV more accurate than the Hebrew and Greek scripture manuscripts we translate from? Q5: Have people been saved and blessed through other Bible translations? Q6: Does God's Word even mention the KJV? Q7: If you say "King James only" (or any version only), are you adding a "new law" to God's word as the pharicees often added their own man made laws? Please do not put this yoke on your grandchildren. Q8: Is it possible that you have made an idol of the KJV in your heart? "Q1: How long has the King James version been around and what did God use for "his Word" before the KJV? The issue is the English translations of the Greek New Testament, not earlier Latin or other translations. "Q3: Do all people speak "The 1600s King's English" or "English" in the world? " The English language after 1611 owes its development in part to the Authorized Version. The King James Version was a model for the development of the English language. Its elegant but simple style had an influence on English-speaking writers" (World Book Encyclopedia). This partially explains why the King James English is more alive and explicit while most other literary-type texts from that period are more difficult to read. The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. The King James Version owes its greatness not to 17th-century English - which was very difficult - but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation (The King James Version Defended, Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984, pp. 218). Ye is a more exact word, for example, that calling a bunch of people you, because we use you to address a single individual. The writing style in the Preface is more complex than that of the 1611 King James Version Bible, whose wording is less complex and often more exact. This is largely because of the translation method of the King James, which tended to be more word for word. That is, the verse wordings of the King James Version derive more from the Greek wordings of the Textus Receptus than from the writing style of Elizabethian English in 1611. The more interesting and lively words of the King James Version come from its word for word method of translation. The NIV, on the other hand, tends to use what is called "dynamic equivalency" in translating the Bible, which sometimes results more in an interpretation, according to the translator's theology. In general, the NIV does not follow word for word the Hebrew or Greek words as closely as does the King James Version, and this is a very important difference for this issue of which version is inspired by God and which is closer to the very early copies of the New Testament. "Q4: Is it possible that your church or upbringing has indoctrinated you into thinking that the KJV is the only acceptable translation?" Whether a "church" or denomination upholds the King James Version or some more recent one is not necessarily relevant to the issue of whether the King James is closer to the early Greek New Testament copies than say the NIV. "Q5: Have people been saved and blessed through other Bible translations?" By "other Bible translations" you probably mean the English translations since 1881 (Revised Version) or American Standard Version of 1901. Yes, some people have been saved through these recent English versions. But the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3 began at about that time, so that how many were saved after the falling away got going is uncertain. In addition, the leavening of the "church" began also at this time. Luke 13: 21 says "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures till the whole was leavened." The word "till" indicates the leavening occurs over a period of time, and neither the leavening nor the falling away occur only during the dispensationalist tribulation. The Great American and English revivals, however, went on before the falling away began at about the end of the 19th century - and in those great revivals the King James Version was used. The gradual substitution of the new versions and turning away from the King James were not the only causes of the falling away and the leavening. Dispensationalism and several other less popular false doctrines also began in the 19th century. "Q6: Does God's Word even mention the KJV?" This is the most obvious example of all of a question which tries to side step the issue of whether the King James Version is inspired and is closer to the very early New Testament Greek texts. Some of the other questions also tend to side step that issue. Obviously, the Bible does not mention any specific English or other Bible translations. An attempt to side step or come against a thesis from a flanking movement is the dialectic argument, which is not that of "it is written." Dean Gotcher calls the dialectic the Diaprax. The Diaprax is a deceptive way or arguing against that which is of faith, or the truth. A Bible translation is important for the creation of faith. I doubt if I can get away with putting a link here. But if anyone is interested in the dialectic, or the Diaprax, type in "Dean Gotcher" on Google. You will get: "The Institution for Authority Research DIAPRAX EXPOSED This website is not for those who are content in the way things are, it is for those who have already been abused by the dialectical process and want to know what happened and how to respond. Learn what Diaprax is (the dialectic process--of Hegel and Marx 'fame'--put into social practice-- praxis) and how it is affecting you and the world around you. About the Institution for Authority Research Articles on Diaprax Check out the introduction to the articles, says it all...Radio programs Why I continue to use the KJV of the Bible (the Textus Receptus)." Dean Gotcher is one leader of what some call the Remnant. The dialectic or Diaprax is a method of attitude or belief change which tries to make every truth or moral into an opinion. "Q7: If you say "King James only" (or any version only), are you adding a "new law" to God's word as the pharicees often added their own man made laws? Please do not put this yoke on your grandchildren." This question seems to assume that there is one Greek New Testament text, and the many English versions since 1881-1901 have somewhat different verse wordings, using that one Greek text. Therefore, you can pick and choose any Bible version you want, and put different verses from different versions together to create you own man-made doctrine. Beware of this, because this is what Satan wants you to do. It creates confusion about what is the authentic word of God. To do justice to the issues of which version is God-inspired and which is closer to the early New Testament copies, you need to learn which English New Testament versions are from the Textus Receptus and which are from the Alexandarian Wescott-Hort Greek texts. You also should learn the characteristics of the Textus Receptus as opposed to the Westcott-Hort. Two New Testament texts do deal with the issue of what is the word of God and its inspired nature: II Timothy 3: 16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Peter 1: 21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The issue is whether the Textus Receptus, from which the King James was translated word for word, or the NIV and other recent versions, from the Westcott-Hort Greek text are inspired, and the extent to which he KJV or the others are faithful to the wordings and doctrines of the early New Testament Greek text copies. These questions need both the Holy Spirit and honest scholarship to deal with. As far as honest scholarship is concerned, these issues can't be dealt with by Byte-Speak, the use of a few sentences. Westcott and Hort argued that since the Alexandarian Greek texts from the fourth century were earlier than the existing Byzantine Greek texts, therefore the Alxandarian texts were closer to the originals and more authentic. But many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings, that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament versions were translated. "Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism." "The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)." "Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri, "They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e. geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). " What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text. "Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)." "Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries." Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)." The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings." The papyri from as early as the late second century, some of which contain Byzantine or Textus Receptus-King James type verse wordings and some have Alexandarian or Westcott-Hort-recent versions wordings, were found mostly in the dry climate of Egypt since 1881 when the Westcott-Hort Greek text was published. So, the argument of Westcott and Hort that the Alexandarian Greek texts are more authentic because they are older than the Byzantine has not been supported. The Byzantine or Textus Receptus Greek texts have longer and more elaborated verse wordings, though not always. The Alexandarian texts tend to have more abbreviated verse wordings. The extreme example is I John 5: 7-8, where, for the Westcott-Hort and its numerous English versions, as compared to the Textus Receptus and the King James, the text is so short and abbreviated that it does not clearly explain the doctrine of the trinity. ELABORATION IN THE KING JAMES If you compare verses from the King James to those of the modern translations, you will find that many verses in the NIV and other modern versions are shorter, more abbreviated and not amplified or elaborated as much. The reason why the verses in the new versions are shorter, though not always, is because the Greek text behind the new versions generally has shorter wordings. I will show this later with such texts as I John 5: 7-8 as examples. Westcott and Hort set up their critical rules so that the shorter wording of verses in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would be used rather than the longer and more amplified or elaborated wordings of the Textus Receptus. In the Bible, God often amplifies a thought as he chooses words to connect to the mind, and to communicate the holiness and the inspiration linked with holiness. The human mind can more easily learn and remember a thought that is amplified and elaborated than a thought that is presented only in a very brief way. I know that sometimes we can communicate more clearly with statements that are brief, but if we know our subject matter and can use words well, we can be more clear by expanding on that thought and associating it with different other ideas. A person who at first knows little of New Testament doctrines should be better able to learn and remember those doctrines from reading them in the King James than from the NIV or other modern versions. In part, this is because of the greater elaboration of the thoughts in the King James. So, after becoming more familiar with the 17th century English of the King James, a person wanting to learn New Testament teachings can learn them more fully from the longer and more elaborated verses in the KJV than from the shorter verses of the new versions. The King James reader may also be better able to remember the gist meanings of those doctrines than the reader of the NIV. This is really an empirical question, and could be tested in experiments. Now, a person who has not read the Bible over and over for a time will have some difficulty in remembering exactly what verses say and exactly how a New Testament doctrine is stated. Here again, the longer, more elaborated verses of the King James should help that person re-learn the verses and the doctrines, while reading them in the NIV should be of somewhat less help in the re-learning process. Remember that the new versions play down, dilute, abbreviate and weaken some New Testament doctrines. The teaching that Christ who is fully God and is always omnipresent but took on the flesh of man in the material world to save us from our sin is one of these doctrines that is played down and weakened in the new translations. This is because it is weakened in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The longer wording of some verses in the King James, its greater amplification and elaboration of meanings is one quality. The actual individual words used is another issue dividing the King James Version from the modern versions. THE SPIRITUALLY POWERFUL WORDS OF THE KING JAMES Isaiah 66: 5 "Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word: your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." The English words that the King James translators chose to use in translating Hebrew and Greek words describe the nature of God and the doctrines God wants us to follow. The words the translators chose work well upon the human mind, on our intellect as well as on our emotions. The words of the King James are effective and powerful in arousing awe for the Lord and in creating faith, at least in those who fully believe in that word of God. The King James English words can put believers into a closer relation to God, to his greatness and can lead us to become more holy as God is holy. The words can inspire us to separate from our own sins and from sinners and those who hold false doctrines. The KJV's words can help put us into a spiritual relation with Jesus Christ, who is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher..." On the other hand, the words of the NIV tend to be more the uninspired and secular words of modern people in the world of the universities, the media, government and big business. Of course, the promoters of the new Bible translations will say this is one of the reasons we should use the NIV, since it uses the language of our time which we understand and not the "archaic" language of the old King James. Many of the words used in the NIV and in other new versions are shown by Edinburgh University's Associative Thesaurus to be unholy, harmful, defiled, and anything but separate from sinners. That is, the associations these words evoke tend to be more unholy, harmful, and defiled. |
1 Comments | Post Comment |
The Counterculture's Whole Earth Movement and the 20th Century Alternative Health Interest - 11:50 AM, 12/16/2011 |
I have been aware that the 20th century alternative health movement I was in Madison, Wisconsin at that time and was familiar with the There were several movements then associated with the core So there were many people I knew in Madison who were influenced by the The hippies were into sex, drugs and an anti-Christian attitude. But In the early seventies I wrote a book called Forest Culture: Essays The counterculture's back to the earth movement then included an It was one origin of the present alternative health movement. http://www.avclub.com/madison/articles/the-spirits-of-madison-activism-show-up-in-sign-fo,40427/ "Madison Calendar "Madison's status as a progressive bubble has long been tied to "Whole Earth Co-op (817 East Johnson St.) Like the other co-ops that sprang up around Madison in the '70s, Whole http://www.mmoca.org/aboutus/pressroom/NicolasLampertPR.php "MADISON, WI"Drawing on the city's long tradition of politically "Lampert's signs commemorate important institutions in Madison's recent "Many of these institutions represent Madison's counterculture of the Mifflin Street Co-op: 32 North Basset Street Whole Earth Coop: 817 East Johnson Street." My note: The Mifflin Street Co-op might have been an earlier model But the Mifflin Street Co-op was right in the heart of hippie-Madison Paul Soglin famous former mayor of Madison wrote an intro to the http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/05/history_of_the_.html "The media always played up the colorful aspects of those times of "The sixties were a time of affluence. Jobs weren't as scarce as they "The Mifflin Street Community Co-op is one of those projects which has "The cast of characters includes martyrs, hustlers, ordinary folks, In the seventies I used the Mifflin Steet Co-op every few days to buy |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Daniel 12: 7: Scattering the Power of the Holy People - 4:52 PM, 12/3/2011 |
Daniel 12: 7: Scattering the Power of the Holy People Bernard Pyron In Daniel 10: 8-21 an angel sent from God comes to Daniel to give him a prophecy. But when the angel finally comes to Daniel he says in Daniel 10: 12-14 "Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. 13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. 14.Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days." The prophecy the angel gave to him is in Daniel Chapter 11 - but there is no clear break in the text between the end of Chapter 11 and the shorter Chapter 12. There are verses from Daniel 11: 33 to Daniel 11: 45, the end of the chapter, which seem to depart from the description of the actions of "he" who is the actor in these last verses of the chapter. For example, Daniel 11: 33 says "And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days." This prophecy on those with understanding instructing many is continued in Daniel 12: 3, "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." "They" who turn many to righteousness are the same "they" who understand and instruct many in Daniel 11: 33. But in Daniel 12: 3 the text adds the turning of those instructed to righteousness, and that they who are wise will shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars for ever and ever." Righteousness is important in understanding who the holy people are in Daniel 12: 7. Remember that the angel told Daniel that he came to make him understand "what shall befall thy people in the latter days." But in the churches the usual view is that Daniel 11 is only about a series of actions in the struggle between the King of the North and the King of the South. To most Christians now, the prophecy was exhausted at the end of the conflict between the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empires, with the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes by disease in 164 BC, who was the King of the North, or of Syria as opposed to Egypt of the South. There are, however, scenarios in Daniel 11 which can be seen to fit historical events in much later periods of history, even up to the early 21st century. And Why would an angel from God be sent to Daniel the prophet to tell him the forthcoming history of the battles between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires? This history does not reach the time when Christ was born during the Roman empire. There is more to Daniel 11 than the story of battles between the house of Ptolemy and the house of Seleucus before the birth of Christ. This "scripture of truth" (Daniel 10: 21) is not likely to be limited to political and military struggles between two ancient dynasties. There is a statement in Daniel 12: 1 which sounds a lot like what Christ said in Matthew 24: 21, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Daniel 12: 1 says "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Lets get to the very interesting part in Daniel 12: 5-10. "Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7. And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." This starts with an image of two men standing on either side of a river, with a man not in the river but "upon the waters of the river." This has to be Jesus Christ, who walked on the water in Matthew 14: 25-29. The two men on either side of the river could represent those in the valley of decision in Joel 3: 14, or the two parts cut off in Zechariah 13: 8-9, or perhaps two groups of people who claim to be of God, physical Israel and the "church." The important part is in verse 7, "...when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." The end will come at the time when the holy people are scattered. But look at that the New International Version has for this part of verse 7. The NIV for some reason leaves out "he" and says "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things shall be completed." This is interesting. Broken is different from scattered. And what does breaking or scattering the power of the holy people mean? On a fleshly or political level, breaking the power of the holy people could mean that Christians in America toward the end will not be as important a group in determining elections of presidents, etc as they were just a few years ago. But breaking or scattering the power of the holy people has a more significant spiritual meaning. Who are the holy people? Strict classical dispensationalism postulates clearly that God now has two people, the physical Israelites and the "church." And in its insistence on interpreting scripture in a consistent literal way, Israel is always physical Israel, and never can be Israel reborn in Jesus Christ. And dispensationalism does not accept Paul's division of Israel into two groups in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-26. Therefore, for many or most, in the "church" the holy people in Daniel 12: 7 has to be physical Israel, the Israelites, the chosen people of God prior to God's transformation of physical Israel to Israel reborn in Christ. But the problem is that to be holy a people must be in Christ and have his righteousness. Man has no righteousness of his own, but only takes on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. There was a small remnant of physical Israel who accepted Christ as Paul shows in Romans 11 and elsewhere in the New Testament it is clear some Israelites became fully born again. The holy people in Daniel's prophecy of Daniel 12 have to be Christians, and those that understand among the people and instruct many are Christians, though this can apply also to the apostles in the First Century. Those in Daniel 12: 3 who turn many to righteousness, the righteousness Christ gives them, and who shine forever, are Christians. The holy people of Daniel 12: 7 are Christians, completely born again in Christ, for otherwise they could not be holy. The NIV says the power of the holy people is to be broken, with the implication that their power - political and/or spiritual - is destroyed, or almost completely destroyed. The New American Standard Bible says "a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed." The New Revised Standard Version says "...two times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end, all these things would be accomplished." Then the American Standard Version has "...and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." And the Catholic Douay-Rheims says "And when the scattering of the band of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished. " So, the English Catholic Bible agrees pretty much with the King James Version. What does the key Hebrew word translated as scattered, broken, and shattered mean? The Hebrew word, in Daniel 12: 7, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 5310, naphates, is said to mean "to dash to pieces, break in pieces, dispersed, scatter." It could mean break in pieces or to scatter the holy people. If we follow the older Protestant method of interpreting scripture by scripture, then what texts are most relevant to Daniel 12: 7? II Thessalonians 2: 3-4, plus Matthew 24: 11, I Timothy 4: 1, II Timothy 3: 13, and II Peter 2: 1 about the falling away and many false prophets deceiving Christians are relevant to the weakening of the spiritual power of Christians in the end times. So is Luke 13: 21 on the leavening of Chirstians. The majority of Christians can be seen to go into apostasy in the end times and in that way lose their spiritual - and political - power. But there are verses which say that God will preserve a Remnant who do not lose their spiritual power, though they may be so small in number and not organized that they have little political power. Isaiah 10: 22-23, Zephaniah 3: 12-13 and Romans 9: 27 all talk about the Remnant. A Remnant existed when physical Israel fell away and will and does exist when the "church" has fallen away. In Revelation 12: 5-6 and Revelation 12: 14, 17 a "woman" goes to the wilderness where she gives birth to a "man child" and her "remnant," in verse 17. The wilderness is metaphoric for being outside of any organized group. The people of God got out of Egypt by going into the literal wilderness. Getting out of "Egypt" could be a metaphor for leaving the apostate churches. So the end time Christian Remnant is not organized and not together in a physical place, though they are in substantial unity in Christ. The Remnant is scattered over the world. The scattered remnant agrees with the King James and Douay-Rheims scattering of the holy people. The Christian Remnant is the holy people of the very last days. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Memories of A 20th Century South Texas Brush Country Family - 10:58 AM, 11/21/2011 |
Memories of a 20th Century South Texas Brush Country Family The story of the Blake Pyron family in the 20th century is one of cattle, My older sister, Mary, in this essay on her memories of our family,
provides information which I never knew because I was the youngest of
four children. For example, I only remember Doctor Ware’s name as T.P.
Ware. Mary says it was Preston Ware, and I now have a vague memory that
was I have a memory of people coming into Somerset on Somerset Road, which I remember in the thirties that the oldest grandchild, who we called I clearly remember the sound of Uncle Casey’s pumping engine, about Mary is accurate on the Pyron history, as far as I can tell. I remember they had lived MARY PYRON BUSH’S PYRON STORIES “One morning I awoke early with the feeling I needed to go back over Whether grandpa smoked cigarettes or cigars, I can’t remember. Daddy It is possible Aunt Delia, his wife, did not enjoy tobacco smoke. Casey worked for an oil company, he was a “pumper.” He was assigned to When we walked in the pasture we were always conscious of the sound of Even after the well had been drilled and had the pipes and jack in Grandpa Pyron, after he discovered oil and had retired, still ran Not far from our house some land had been cleared for a field. I Once we heard the rattle of a snake under our house. The floor was Today we have easy access to bird books so we can identify birds, we Perhaps it was a difficult adjustment for people who had farmed and  Pyron Brothers Store In Somerset, Mid Twenties Delivery service was expected by many customers. They phoned in the In the winter when the pastures were bare and the cattle had little to
During the hard times of the early 1930s, we witnessed a sad situation Two operating oil refineries in Somerset provided work for a number of The experience remains vivid in my memory. Louise and I were outside There are such varied and interesting activities for children growing George had a little metal truck that was exciting. He was tall enough There were three families in our Pyron compound that used the dump. We Grandpa Pyron had built a large 2 car garage not From time to time, a traveling show would stop in town for a week or It wasn’t too long before George realized that he was too grown up to We had toys. When daddy worked for Mr. Morrison, one of the bottling For part of Bernard’s childhood he had hound dogs galore to play On Saturday nights when the weather was right a hunt was planned. Sometimes the dogs followed a trail that led far away from the camp. There were few wolves in the area and more often than not the only
Above: Father Blake B. Pyron On His Brush Country Pony, about 1915
Above: Grandfather A.M. Pyron after he got out of the Confederate army, but before he went to Texas in 1867.
Above: Older brother George Pyron with me when I was a baby. Notice the family car, a Model T, in the background, by the ‘four trees.”
Above: Pyron Coyote Hounds About 1938
|
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Daniel 12: 7, and the Comic Book Version of the Anti-Christ and the Rebuilt Temple - 7:49 PM, 11/12/2011 |
Daniel 12: 7, and the Comic Book Version of the Anti-Christ and the Rebuilt Temple Bernard Pyron Daniel 12: 7 says ""...when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." The end will come at the time when the holy people are scattered. The key question is who are the holy people in Daniel 12: 7? Do you define them by man made theology or by scripture? But Daniel 12: 7 does not fit the end time scenario of comic book prophecy, that the church will be raptured before the tribulation starts and then the Jews will be saved and there is to be a one man super world political dictator who is going to come and sit in a newly re-built temple in Jerusalem and defile it. This event is to mark the start of the dispensationalist seven year tribulation. The quotes below are from an online version as a pdf file of: Christian Zionism: Its History, Theology and Politics, by Stephen Sizer AAARGH Internet Editions 2005 http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livre...Rchriszion.pdf Its from Stephen Sizer's chapter on Hal Lindsey The Re-Built Temple In Jerusalem Lindsey starts from Daniel 9: 24-27, and tells us that: "This prophecy speaks of sacrifice and offerings which demand that the Jews rebuild the Temple for the third time upon its original site. At that point, Judaism and Islam will be placed on an inevitable course of war over the site, a war that will start Armageddon. Many prophecies demand rebuilding of the ancient Temple, indicating that the event is a significant prophetic sign (see Matthew 24:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4). Therefore any move toward that direction is a crucial clue to what hour it is on God's prophetic timetable".160 "This prophecy" is Daniel 9: 24-27 The key verse is Daniel 9: 27. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." "He" shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." This is where the dispensationalists derive their doctrine that a third temple will be built in Jerusalem before their anti-Christ appears. But who is "he" in Daniel 9: 27? "He" has to refer back to the previous verse, which is verse 26, saying "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." "He" is the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The only other man mentioned in verse 26 is the prince, who is Titus, the Roman General that led the army in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The footnote here, 160, is to 160 Lindsey, Israel., p. 23., Israel and the Last Days 1983, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House, Sizer says "Lindsey points to the existence of two talmudic schools training some 200 Levite priests and the accumulation of vessels and clothing necessary to perform sacrifices, as further proof of the imminent plans to rebuild the Temple." Sizer quotes Lindsey as saying "So the rebuilding of the Temple is significant not only because of the potential firestorm it will create between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. It is also a critical development in the entire prophetic scenario. The Bible makes it clear that in the last days the Antichrist will establish his reign in the Temple of Jerusalem. Therefore, the Temple must and will be rebuilt."177 Lindsey, Final, p. 104.The Final Battle (Palos Verdes, California, Western Front, 1995); The Super One Man Political Anti-Christ Sizer quotes Lindsey as saying "We believe that the dramatic elements which are occurring in the world today are setting the stage for this magnetic, diabolical Future Fuehrer to make his entrance.301 301 Lindsey, Late., p. 113. The Late Great Planet Earth (London, Lakeland, 1970); "As I wrote 10 years ago in The Late Great Planet Earth, I believe this man is alive today-alive and waiting to come forth... I believe this leader is alive somewhere in Europe; perhaps he is already a member of the EEC parliament.302 302 Lindsey, 1980's., pp. 15, 106.The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon (New York, Bantam, 1981 He will immediately rise to prominence in the EEC and from that post he will offer the world amazing solutions to all its complex and terrifying problems. Because of his superhuman powers and his solutions to the world's conflicts, the anti-Christ will be chosen to lead the EEC.303 303 Lindsey, 1980's., p. 109 The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon (New York, Bantam, 1981 Heading up what will evolve into a 10-nation confederacy will be a man of such magnetism and power that he will become the greatest dictator the world has ever known... And he is alive today. There is a potential dictator waiting in the wings somewhere in Europe who will make Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin look like choir boys. Right now he is preparing to take his throne, inflaming his soul with visions of what he will be able to do for mankind with his grand schemes and revolutionary ideas... Is alive and well on planet Earth... Lets go meet him."304 304 Lindsey, Planet., pp. 232, 235. The Liberation of Planet Earth (London, Lakeland, 1974); Sizer says "Despite promising in 1995, 'I will show you who will be the key players in this endtimes drama,'and for thirty years, making detailed predictions about this 'someone', supposedly alive today, Lindsey is still unable to identify the anti-Christ." The one man super anti-Christ of the dispensationalists is to sit in the re-built temple to desecrate it, which is their take on Paul in II Thessalonians 2: 3-4. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." In scripture, rather than in Comic Book Theology, Paul teaches in I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19 that the believers, those born again in Christ, are the temple. Then what he says in II Thessalonians 2: 4 is metaphor and does not talk about one guy sitting in a literal temple. If it refers to one super New World Order anti-Christ politician sitting in a literal temple, then Paul was not writing under the the Holy Spirit in either II Thessalonians 2: 4 or in I Corinthians 3: 16-17 and I Corinthians 6: 19. The Holy Spirit does not inspire contradictory doctrines. In Paul's metaphor the man of sin, representing many false prophets or those who have the spirit of anti-Christ, will influence, or "sit," in the minds and hearts of the believers who have been deceived into accepting the false doctrines taught. Another part of the comic book scenario is that the dispensationalist church will be raptured off the earth right before the one man anti-Christ appears and sits in the literal temple in Jerusalem. John in I John 2: 18-19, and I John 4: 3 does not predict a one man anti-Christ who is to appear during the tribulation. Rather, he talks about many anti-Christs being in the world when he wrote and that there is a spirit of Anti-Christ. In the comic book scenario the "Holy People" are the Jews who in postponement theology are all saved and totally born again after the "church" has been raptured. If the born again Jews are to be scattered, and remember it says the power of the holy people is to be scattered, this does not fit with the dispensationalist scenario that "All Israel" shall be saved during the tribulation. Remember also that during the tribulation in the comic book scenario the 144,000, all male Jew virgins, are running around doing something. Hal Lindsay says they are 144,000 "Billy Grahams." Though the Jews as the "Holy People" may not all be in one place during the tribulation their power will not be reduced by the scattering as told in Daniel 12: 7 - in the comic book scenario. The Holy People have to be those born again in Christ, since people have no righteousness of their own, but only take on the righteousness of Christ when they are in him and receive some part of his mind into their inner life. So, the comic book theologians have to ignore Daniel 12: 7 or make up explanations about how it is fulfilled in some way that doesn't involve "All Israel shall be saved" during the tribulation. And - the Holy Spirit is not the Restrainer of II Thessalonians 2: 7. Get a good concordance and look up texts involving the Holy Spirit and how he deals with us. He leads into the truth. The restrainer is not the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit leads into the truth, then how could a Remnant or the 144,000 operate in great faith on the earth during the very last days? And how could 144,000 male Jewish virgins all be Hal Lindsey's "Billy Grahams" without the Holy Spirit? Lindsey apparently meant that the 144,000 will have spiritual power. No one has spiritual power without the Holy Spirit. Lindsey used the wrong guy, though, because a 33rd degree mason - unless he fully repents - does not have spiritual power from the Holy Spirit. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Daniel 12: 7: Scattering the Power of the Holy People - 5:44 PM, 11/10/2011 |
Daniel 12: 7: Scattering the Power of the Holy People Bernard Pyron In Daniel 10: 8-21 an angel sent from God comes to Daniel to give him a prophecy. But when the angel finally comes to Daniel he says in Daniel 10: 12-14 "Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. 13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. 14.Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days." The prophecy the angel gave to him is in Daniel Chapter 11 - but there is no clear break "They" who turn many to righteousness are the same "they" who understand and instruct many in Daniel 11: 33. But in Daniel 12: 3 the text adds the turning of those instructed to righteousness, and that they who are wise will shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars for ever and ever." Righteousness is important in understanding who the holy people are in Daniel 12: 7. Remember that the angel told Daniel that he came to make him understand "what shall befall thy people in the latter days." But in the churches the usual view is that Daniel 11 is only about a series of actions in the struggle between the King of the North and the King of the South. To most Christians now, the prophecy was exhausted at the end of the conflict between the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empires, with the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes by disease in 164 BC, who was the King of the North, or of Syria as opposed to Egypt of the South. There are, however, scenarios in Daniel 11 which can be seen to fit historical events in much later periods of history, even up to the early 21st century. And Why would an angel from God be sent to Daniel the prophet to tell him the forthcoming history of the battles between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires? This history does not reach the time when Christ was born during the Roman empire. There is more to Daniel 11 than the story of battles between the house of Ptolemy and the house of Seleucus before the birth of Christ. This "scripture of truth" (Daniel 10: 21) is not likely to be limited to political and military struggles between two ancient dynasties. There is a statement in Daniel 12: 1 which sounds a lot like what Christ said in Matthew 24: 21, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." Daniel 12: 1 says "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." Lets get to the very interesting part in Daniel 12: 5-10. "Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7. And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 8. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." This starts with an image of two men standing on either side of a river, with a man not in the river but "upon the waters of the river." This has to be Jesus Christ, who walked on the water in Matthew 14: 25-29. The two men on either side of the river could represent those in the valley of decision in Joel 3: 14, or the two parts cut off in Zechariah 13: 8-9, or perhaps two groups of people who claim to be of God, physical Israel and the "church." The important part is in verse 7, "...when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." The end will come at the time when the holy people are scattered. But look at that the New International Version has for this part of verse 7. The NIV for some reason leaves out "he" and says "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things shall be completed." This is interesting. Broken is different from scattered. And what does breaking or scattering the power of the holy people mean? On a fleshly or political level, breaking the power of the holy people could mean that Christians in America toward the end will not be as important a group in determining elections of presidents, etc as they were just a few years ago. But breaking or scattering the power of the holy people has a more significant spiritual meaning. Who are the holy people? Strict classical dispensationalism postulates clearly that God now has two people, the physical Israelites and the "church." And in its insistence on interpreting scripture in a consistent literal way, Israel is always physical Israel, and never can be Israel reborn in Jesus Christ. And dispensationalism does not accept Paul's division of Israel into two groups in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-26. Therefore, for many or most, in the "church" the holy people in Daniel 12: 7 has to be physical Israel, the Israelites, the chosen people of God prior to God's transformation of physical Israel to Israel reborn in Christ. But the problem is that to be holy a people must be in Christ and have his righteousness. Man has no righteousness of his own, but only takes on the righteousness of Jesus Christ. There was a small remnant of physical Israel who accepted Christ as Paul shows in Romans 11 and elsewhere in the New Testament it is clear some Israelites became fully born again. The holy people in Daniel's prophecy of Daniel 12 have to be Christians, and those that understand among the people and instruct many are Christians, though this can apply also to the apostles in the First Century. Those in Daniel 12: 3 who turn many to righteousness, the righteousness Christ gives them, and who shine forever, are Christians. The holy people of Daniel 12: 7 are Christians, completely born again in Christ, for otherwise they could not be holy. The NIV says the power of the holy people is to be broken, with the implication that their power - political and/or spiritual - is destroyed, or almost completely destroyed. The New American Standard Bible says "a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed." The New Revised Standard Version says "...two times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end, all these things would be accomplished." Then the American Standard Version has "...and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." And the Catholic Douay-Rheims says "And when the scattering of the band of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished. " So, the English Catholic Bible agrees pretty much with the King James Version. What does the key Hebrew word translated as scattered, broken, and shattered mean? The Hebrew word, in Daniel 12: 7, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 5310, naphates, is said to mean "to dash to pieces, break in pieces, dispersed, scatter." It could mean break in pieces or to scatter the holy people. If we follow the older Protestant method of interpreting scripture by scripture, then what texts are most relevant to Daniel 12: 7? II Thessalonians 2: 3-4, plus Matthew 24: 11, The majority of Christians can be seen to go into apostasy in the end times and in that way lose their spiritual - and political - power. But there are verses which say that God will preserve a Remnant who do not lose their spiritual power, though they may be so small in number and not organized that they have little political power. Isaiah 10: 22-23, Zephaniah 3: 12-13 and Romans 9: 27 all talk about the Remnant. A Remnant existed when physical Israel fell away and will and does exist when the "church" has fallen away. In Revelation 12: 5-6 and Revelation 12: 14, 17 a "woman" goes to the wilderness where she gives birth to a "man child" and her "remnant," in verse 17. The wilderness is metaphoric for being outside of any organized group, and it is metaphoric for the people of God getting out of Egypt and going into the literal wilderness. "Egypt" is metaphoric for the apostate churches. So the end time Christian Remnant is not organized and not together in a physical place, though they are in substantial unity in Christ. The Remnant is scattered over the world. The scattered remnant agrees with the King James and Douay-Rheims scattering of the holy people. The Christian Remnant is the holy people of the very last days. |
1 Comments | Post Comment |
Cultural Marxism and the Dialectic Attitude Change Procedure - 10:20 AM, 11/7/2011 |
Cultural Marxism and the Dialectic Attitude Change Procedure Bernard Pyron The dialectic is a procedure for changing attitudes and beliefs, and not in itself a belief, position, doctrine or attitude. It comes out of a philosophical position, from Hegel, Marx and Freud, which denies there is absolute truth and absolute morality. In other words, the dialectic is a procedure, which can be used to negate morality, so the "facilitator" can end up moving a small group, or one target person, out of his or her morals. To learn to identify the use of the dialectic in discourse, you need verbatim records of conversations illustrating its use. When one person presents an opinion, idea or piece of information, this is the "thesis." Another person may want to change that person's position, which is his "thesis," and/or he wants to change a group's position by using the person who presented the thesis as an example. Usually, with the dialectic, the "facilitator" who tries to change an opinion, perception, idea or bit of information will not immediately challenge the thesis head on. The facilitator may even begin by appearing to agree with the thesis, or will claim he agrees with it in part. Then, the facilitator side steps a head on challenge of the thesis based on fact, and challenges the thesis from the side. Sometimes this is where using one particular point, not the main point, of the thesis comes it. The facilitator will focus on one point and make it the focus of attention, in part, changing the thesis to that one point. Or, the facilitator will bring up a point that appears to be somewhat irrelevant to the thesis. Or, the facilitator will misrepresent the thesis slightly or in big way. There are other methods of using the dialectic. Dean Gotcher emphasizes the role of acceptance by the group which the person who brings up a thesis belongs to. The dialectic works better when the person targeted wants to be accepted by the group. He may be willing to compromise his position in order to gain group acceptance. The facilitator works to crate group coherence and agreement on the issue at hand. This use of group acceptance can work also with an Internet forum, where there tends to be some agreement on positions, but there are factions also in the group, which may be in the minority. The user of the dialectic, the facilitator in the Internet forum situation, may try to appeal to the majority view against the minority view. This assumes the target person, part of the minority, or a minority of one in some cases, wants acceptance by the group, or at least wants some in the group to accept his views. Gotcher talks a lot about the contemporary origins of the dialectic. He especially spends time in talking about the following guys in history: Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770 " 1831) Karl Marx (1818 " 1883) Abraham Maslow Carl Rogers Irvin Yalom Theodor Adorno Erick Fromm Norman O. Brown Herbart Marcuse Adorno and Marcuse were core members of the Frankfurt School. Fromm was similar to them in ideology. Theodor W. Adorno, who was the senior author of the highly influential book, The Authoritian Personality (1950), posed as a social psychologist, and taught that fascism is caused by Christianity and the strong family. The Frankfurt School, which included Wilhelm Reich on its fringes, represented what is called cultural Marxism. They set out to overthrow the major institutions of the West, especially Christianity and the family, by non-violent means, rather than by the violent means of classical Marxism. The dialectic is one important procedure in overthrowing the foundational institutions of the West. But - the dialectic is not limited to cultural Marxism, because its use spread to the institutions of society, including the Christian church, And in the churches, the dialectic is not limited to the Rick Warren type of mega-churches, which emphasize church growth more than adherence to the Gospel. Cultural Marxism, via the Frankfurt School, began to be spread from the major universities, especially the University of California at Berkeley in the early fifties. Those in personality and social psychology became familiar with the Adorno book and the huge number of attitude studies that grew from it. A few years later, the cultural Marxism movement, plus Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers self psychology, spread to higher education and soon to the public school. This is where Dean Gotcher encountered the dialectic since he was in education. |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Two Major Reasons For the Falling Away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 - 1:09 PM, 10/30/2011 |
Two Major Reasons For the Falling Away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 Bernard Pyron Two influences that originated in England during the 19th century, and gained great momentum in the U.S. have contributed a great deal to the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4 and to church Christians being deceived by false prophets as shown in Matthew 24: 11, I Timothy 4: 1-2, II Timothy 4: 3-4, and II Peter 2: 1-3. These two influences were dispensationalism and the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881 which they created to unseat the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Both influences gradually weakened faith. As Luke 13: 21 says these influences as leaven were hid in most of evangelical Christianity until "the whole was leavened." The two influences worked together to undermine faith in the word of God; the influences were additive in weakening faith in God and in his word. This does not mean that all followers of dispensationalism have used new translations based upon the Westcott-Hort. But - since most church Christians have been using the New Translations based upon Westcott-Hort, this meant that most dispensationalists also used the same translations, since the majority of church Christians are followers of dispensationalism to some extent. Although some dispensationalists use the King James Version, the influence of Westcott-Hort has not been overcome at all. And - many Christians in the reformed camp also use the Westcott-Hort derived versions. In fact, the Reformed people in the churches, or most of them, defend the entire church as the beast of Revelation 17: 9-11 against those who have heeded Revelation 18: 4 and have come out of "her." The purpose of this thread is to support the Textus Receptus-King James Version, and to show that the wrecking machine that is Westcott-Hort is something to get off of, to come out of "her" as Revelation 18: 4 says, so that those who come out of the Westcott-Hort influence are not partakers of her sins and do not receive her plagues. Revelation 18: 4 is a call to come out of the apostate system - but Westcott-Hort helped make it apostate. Dean Gotcher, the authority on the use of the dialectic in society and in Christian discourse, on his website, http://www.authorityresearch.com/ARTICLES_Other/Source of the King James Bible.htm says "Faith does not come by hearing mans opinion of God's word (there is no certainty, conviction, or conversion in opinions), but rather faith comes by hearing God's word itself. It is important you know (you are certain) that what you are hearing, reading, studying, preaching, and teaching is God's word. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the God." Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 What eventually became entitled the Textus Receptus or the "received text" (1633) was first presented by Erasmus (Novum Instrumentum omne, 1516). It was compiled from several manuscripts from the 'Majority text,' i.e. the Byzantine (Syrian) text, which were a large number of manuscripts and fragments originally protected by the eastern church from the western church's (Roman Catholics church's) efforts to destroy them, and therefore were not accessible to the western world until after the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire. By Christians fleeing from the east into the west, these guarded manuscripts were eventually accessible to western scholars. Today there is a major move to confuse the Protestant Church and bring it back under Roman Catholic rule (the "ecumenical" movement). By discrediting the use of the Textus Receptus as God's Word, examining (and thus negating) the Word of God in the "light" of Gnostic text, the Protestant Church is being seduced, deceived, and manipulated, drawn away from the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and into the dialoguing of mans opinions. The Alexandrian and Origen text (Gnostic texts) are the basis for almost all contemporary translations. Oregenes Adamantius 185-245 AD, was a Greek, Egyptian-born Gnostic writer, teacher, & mystic, who, with his contingent of scribes, synthesized philosophical teachings into the scriptures (which no longer made them God's word but rather the opinions of men, needing enlightened men thereon to interpret them). These Gnostic texts, with their humanistic, philosophical base, have opened the churches and seminaries up to humanistic reasoning (higher criticism or vain speculations) and dialogue, with the opinions of men in control of the meaning of God and His Word. Almost all translations today carry this error (heresy). Most Christians who detected the error of the "Church Growth Movement," the emergent church, etc. were using translations from the Textus Receptus (King James, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther, etc. bibles) They discerned the compromise, i.e. the structural change of the word of God, and the resulting humanism being practiced within the "contemporary" church, by their having been raised in Churches using translations from the Textus Receptus." On a Christian forum a guy said "In His great wisdom, our God has allowed these texts to be there and although I believe some mischief has come from them, it has provoked another in depth study of God's great Word." "These texts" are the Westcott-Hort Greek text and its English offspring, including the New International Version.. Romans 9: 21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Luke 17: 1 "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" John 8: 35; "And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever." |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
Comments On Excerpts From W.E. Best - 1:27 PM, 9/13/2011 | |
View Profile History Comments On Excerpts From W.E. Best Bernard Pyron W.E. Best says "BIBLICAL TRUTH: Neither the prophets nor the apostles spiritualized away the final culmination of human history into pure subjectivity. A literal prophecy spiritualized is exegetical fraud. It makes as much sense to spiritualize Christ’s first advent as His second advent. Amillennialism is a taunting dream, whereas a future kingdom with the Son of Man on the throne is an energizing hope which purifies the elect (Luke 1:32; I John 3:2,3)." This is ambiguous. The question is what does he mean by "spiritualized?" He sounds like he is opposing the broad sweeping allegorical interpretations of Origen, a method which was taken up by Augustine, and by the Catholic Church, and then by Calvinism after the Reformation. The dispensatinalists over-reacted against these broad sweeping allegorical interpretations, and gave us a system of "hermeneutics" which is not worakable, in part because the literal method of Bible interpretation cannot be applied consistently to all Scripture. It tends to distort parables and metaphors which are found in so many Bible texts. So, was W.E. Best here influenced by dispensationalism? I thought when I first started reading this that he might belong to the Reformed Camp. I found an interesting use of the word "assembly" by W. E. Best. He says "The supreme mission of the assembly of Jesus Christ is to glorify God, but this may be done only as she earnestly contends “for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)." And he says "The assembly must be separated from the world in order to minister to it." If he is using "assembly" to avoid the use of "church" that is interesting. But from what he says I can't tell for sure that this is what he is doing. Is he questioning the use of the "church" as a separate body of Christ, separate from Israel? What I found on him in a brief search on Google doesn't say whether he belonged to a Reformed group. Some contemporary Reformed leaders say the "church" is Israel, and some orthodox Lutherans agree. But they don't question the "church" as a separate body of Christ. Best says "All whom God foreordained to salvation will be glorified (Rom. 8:28-34). The foreordained, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified are equal in number. God never starts something that He is incapable of bringing to its foreordained conclusion (Phil. 1:6)." This sounds like Calvinism. He also says "Christians are neither regenerated nor glorified gradually. Both are instantaneous. The Bible teaches that when redemption is applied to souls or bodies, it is complete and forever. The Charismatics reach the unavoidable conclusion that the salvation of one’s soul is like the healing of his body, either of which he can have today and lose tomorrow." This also sounds like Calvinism. If what he says is true of all believers, then Satan could not lure those who believe into false doctrines. And those who as Baby Christians have an experience from the Holy Spirit which brings them to believe what they know of the Gospel, they may then go on to grow up in Christ and know and believe much more of the doctrines of Christ, and come to have a love of Christ as the truth himself and a love for his doctrines. This is all a process, not instantaneous. "Wilbern Elias "W. E." Best was born on June 18, 1919, in east Texas. He was the youngest of five children. He made a false profession of faith at 15. At 20, God changed his heart and life, and W. E. genuinely repented, converted, and knew he was called to preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some of our assembly members served with and were shepherded by pastor Best (or as Christian brethren often address each other, "by Brother Best") for over 50 years. As of December 2006, our pastor retired. On Friday, June 15, 2007, Bro. Best went home to be with the Lord." Many of the writings of W.E. Best are available online. at: http://www.webbmt.org/EnglishBooks.htm There are both contemporary and past Christians who have been associated with Reformed theology, but who follow historical premillennialism; they believe that Christ will set up his kingdom on earth as Revelation 20: 1-5 says, but they do not believe in a pre-trib rapture nor in Jewish supremacy as do the dispensationalist premillennialists. You can Google this topic and find which recent Calvinists were historical premillennialiss. And there have been Reformed leaders in the past who did not dwell on the five points of orthodox Calvinism. I have a book on the writings of the English evangelist Richard Sibbes (1577-1635), who is classified as a Calvinist. In these writings Sibbes does not get into predestination or the other starting points of what we think of as Calvinism. He an evangelist, and spiritually a rival leader to William Ames (1576-1633). Ames spent time in Holland and his Calvinism was closer to Dutch Calvinism than was that of Richard Sibbes. And importantly, William Ames was the spiritual father of the New England Puritans. The Calvinism of the New England Puritans, closer to Dutch Calvinism, was a different breed of theology than that of the Scotch-Irish followers of John Knox, Samuel Rutherford and other leaders of the Calvinism of Scotland. The emphasis in Puritan theology upon one's occupational calling and making that a success, plus Calvin's liberalization of the Biblical teaching against usury, contributed to the descendants of the original New England Puritans to becoming a money elite (by the time of the War of Northern Aggression). And it happened that one of the backbones of the Southern resistance to the rule of the New England, former Puritan elite, was the Scotch-Irish of the South who were Calvinists but not of the Calvinism of New England. The ancestors of those Scotch-Irish guys of 1861-1865 had fought the English and later again in the American Revolution. The Southern Planter class elite which stood in the way of the New England elite's rule over the entire U.S., and which helped got the South into that war, were derived mostly from Church of England English settlers. The Calvinism of Scotland in John Knox and Samuel Rutherford taught that Christians had a right to defend themselves physically from a totalitarian government and they did not accept the Catholic and Church of England interpretation of Romans 13, that Christians must obey the government no matter what it does to them or to others. Knox had personal experience in resisting a Catholic run government that tried to kill him. That brand of Calvinist theology from Knox and Rutherford was translated into a secular ideology of government as a republic by John Locke. Thomas Jefferson used Locke's writing on government as a foundation for the Declaration of Independence. | |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
The Khazar Theory - 9:59 PM, 8/5/2011 |
The Khazar Theory Bernard Pyron On a Christian forum there has been discussion of the theory that Jews, or Ahkenazi Jews, are really descendants of the Non-Semitic Khazars. Khazaria was an area between the Black and Caspian Seas where people mostly of Turkish descent lived in the seventh to tenth centuries. The Khazar theory says that Jews today, or just Ashkenazi Jews, are not racially Jews, but are descendants from the Turkic tribe of Khazars, whose ruling class and some others converted to Judaism in the 8th or early 9th century. The Thirteenth Tribe (1976), by Arthur Koestler, helped to spread the Khazar theory. On http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html they report a number of genetic studies on Jewish populations. "The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E. Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples from the northern Mediterranean region and even less from Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European)." "The 185delAG breast cancer mutation is found among both Ashkenazim and Moroccan Jews." " Many Spanish-speaking Latinos of the American Southwest are descended from Anusim (Spanish Jews who were forced to convert to Catholicism)." "There are known skeletons of Khazars from the Don-valley (Sarkel, Semikarakovskoye, etc.) and from the Crimea (e.g., Sudak). It is important to note that Khazarian skeletons and North Caucasian Turks have not yet been used to compare Jewish genes with likely traces of the Khazars. Thus, the Khazar theory has not really been put to the genetic test yet." But whether there might be some bit of evidence in favor of the Khazar theory, or whether it is totally false, does not matter because we want to argue from what scripture states and from inspiration from the Holy Spirit rather than from a man-made theory. You don't want to use the theory that Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic to try to refute the teachings of dispensationalism, the Hebrew Roots Movement, the Sacred Namers, most Messianic Judaism groups, Christian Identity theology and the Mormons that the Hebrews are, by their genetics, still God's chosen people. You want to use Scripture to refute the Jewish supremacy teachings, or Hebrew Supremacy in the case of the Christian Identity people. Christian Identity followers say Germanic and Celtic people are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel (the Hebrews of the Nothern Kingdom called Israel) and they generally oppose Jews. The spiritual battle of the little Remnant who try to hold up the truth of the New Testament to instruct many as Daniel 11: 33 says to bring a group larger than that small Remnant out of the false doctrine of Jewish supremacy and out of the churches lies in using scripture. Using race theories about the Khazars just allows Ol Scratch to mess up that spiritual battle, because the Lord is not going to support it. Ephesians 6: 14 says to stand, having your loins girt about with truth, and verse 17 commands us to take up the spiritual sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Its a spiritual battle and the battle is going to grow in intensity, and without the Spirit and the word of God, you don't really go out on the field and do battle. You can't battle spiritually with a worldly theory. At the Cross entry into the Kingdom was no longer by blood lines, but all had to be born again in Christ. This truth is what we use in the spiritual battle. And - this truth makes the argument from a race point of view of no value, whether you argue for or against the Jews being the chosen people because of their blood lines. In other words, using the Khazar theory to show that the Jews are not descended from Abraham involves a focus again on race. In the transformation or translation of physical Israel into that other Israel which Paul points to in Romans 9: 8 and Galatians 4: 26, race was totally done away with. In that transformation to Israel reborn in Jesus Christ, there is no place given to race (Galatians 3: 28) It doesn't matter about the Khazar theory because there is no place for race in God's New Covenant. The New Testament, in Paul's writing in Romans (2: 28-29, 9: 6-8) and Galatians (3: 28-29, 4: 24-26), but also by Peter, especially in I Peter 2: 9, argues from Holy Spirit inspiration, which is far better than the Khazar theory, that there is no more entry into the Kingdom of God by genetics. I Peter 2: 9 explains that Christians are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and holy nation, a peculiar people..." |
0 Comments | Post Comment |
More On the Dialectic Change Procedure - 9:24 PM, 8/1/2011 | ||||
| ||||
0 Comments | Post Comment | ||||
| « Last Page | Next Page » |