Conspiracy Theories

In Bible Believing circles, conspiracy theories are a hot topic.

We all know Christians who have gone off the deep end and moved into the wilderness to “get off the grid” but have done nothing for the Lord in the last 20 years.  Obviously, there is a danger in going overboard on Conspiracy theories.

Nevertheless, there is SOME profit in understanding that our understanding of the last 100 years of history makes more sense when viewed through the lens of what would commonly be referred to as “Conspiracy theories.”

One of the theories that this blog has taken a tough stand against, is the idea that Bible Believers should get involved in politics in order to try and “save ‘Merica”.  Many big shot pastors and evangelists are going around this country and acting like the Bible teaches that we should try and change the direction of this country through sending Bible school graduates to DC to try and make a difference.

If one understands the truth about this country, no one would ever teach that this country CAN be saved.  “The wicked shall be cast into hell and all the nations that forget God.”  The common illustration is a man trying to bail water out of the Titanic.  Evangelists will teach that we should at least try to save the Titanic.  This illustration is faulty because if ‘Merica is the Titanic, it is not in the process of sinking.  It is at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.  Who would bail water at that point?  Maybe that’s a bad question because you might be able to find an evangelist that IS that stupid…

The way to prove that this country is sunk is 9/11.  If this country is so crooked that it would purposely stage a terror attack in order to force in the Patriot Act and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, then that country is not worth any effort trying to save it.

Our nation’s history is riddled with conspiracy theories that turned out to be true:

  1. Kuwaiti girl’s testimony that got us into the first Gulf War.
  2. Watergate.
  3. Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam War.
  4. MK-ULTRA’s mind control techniques.
  5. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
  6. The government’s advance knowledge of the sinking of the Lusitania to start WWI.
  7. The government’s advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor to start WWI.

That is how our government works.  The ship has sunk.

I said all that to introduce the idea that all Bible Believer’s believe in some Conspiracies.  

People will argue all day about the exact definition of a Bible Believer.  But one condition that is almost without debate is that no Bible Believer believes in the Theory of Evolution.  Some proponents of the Skip Theory (no gappers) think that the Gap Fact is a compromise, but even the most extreme believer in the Gap believes that Darwinian Evolution is a fact.

Bible Believers are forced to admit that there is a CONSPIRACY and that all the scientists of the world are working together under the auspices of the Devil in order to teach kids that men descend from monkeys.  This conspiracy’s ultimate goal (or the purveyors of this conspiracy’s goal) is to teach men that all existence is an accident and that nothing exists after death.  There is no soul because souls don’t fit into the evolutionary paradigm.  In their most open dialogue, the high priests of the religion of evolution will teach that since death is as natural as life, then there may come a time when killing men by the millions is as expedient as killing the wolves in Yellowstone or the Tasmanian Tigers.  This will culminate in the religion of the Antichrist and the deaths of so many that the Antichrist will make Hitler, Stalin, and Mao look like little kiddies.

All Bible Believers accept this conspiracy.

Another conspiracy that a Bible Believer holds to, is the conspiracy about modern Bible versions.   How in the world, modern scholars have duped the world into thinking that the Alexandrian-text type that represents less that 5% of available manuscripts represents the God honoured originals can only be labelled as a conspiracy.

Researchers Chris Pinto, David Daniels of Chick Publications, and Steven Avery are beginning to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Codex Siniaticus (Aleph) is a 19th Century forgery stolen by Tischendorf and lyingly presented as written in the 4th Century.  We now are forced to admit that modern scholarship is as corrupt on Bible manuscripts as it is on Evolution.  To believe contrary to the modern paradigm is to be a conspiracy theorist.  It shouldn’t bother a Bible Believer at all.

So knowing that all Bible Believers believe in some form of Conspiracy Theory, we shouldn’t be so averse to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job and that the devil rules the world through the Pope and the Pope through the Jesuits and the UN all the way down to the great puppets Obama and ole’ Trump.  We shouldn’t reject ideas like Geocentricity out of hand, but we should ask ourselves the only question that really matters, “What saith the Scripture?”

This should make you want to stay out of politics and science and move closer to the Lord Jesus Christ in desiring and praying for his soon return.

 

Erasmus of Rotterdam

http://keystothebible.net/special-studies/1970s-king-james-bible-conference/

 

Here is a link to Bro. Bob Alexander’s website.  Specifically this link points to a series of mp3s that have to do with the topic of the King James Bible Controversy.

 

Obviously, I recommend the audio of Dr. Peter Ruckman.  But I also heartily recommend that you give a listen to the audio by BV Barlett about Erasmus of Rotterdam.

 

I fully believe that, along with the King James Translators, Erasmus is the fulfillment of Matt 23:34:

“Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:”

After listening, I think you will agree.

Visitation Notes for Dealing with Jews

Jews

Isaiah 52:13-53:12

  1. Isaiah 49:5,6 – Servant can’t be Israel, it’s the Messiah.
    1. Therefore, the “servant” in Isaiah isn’t always Israel. (also 20:3, 22:20, 37:35)
  2. Why can’t Isaiah 53 be the nation of Israel?
    1. Vs 3 – Nations hid from Israel? When?
    2. Vs 7 – Israel didn’t open mouth?
      1. Yes, they did. Ex “Trial of God”
    3. Vs 8 – Cut off out of the land of the living?
      1. Many nations have ceased, but Israel still exists.
    4. Vs 9 – No violence?
      1. King David hotel bombing, wars of Israel…
    5. No deceit in mouth?
      1. Hebrew calendar manipulated so Christ not born at year 4000.

Ps 22 – Prophecy of Crucifixion.

  • Can’t be David. Vs 14, 16, 18.

Dan 9:20-27 – 69 weeks (483 years) started in Neh 2

  • Artaxerxes started his reign in 473 BC.
  • His 20th year would be 453 BC.
  • 453-483=30 AD
  • The Messiah (9:25) had to come around the time of Jesus Christ. (30 AD)
  • Doesn’t allow for the Messiah in 2015 AD or later…

New Jerusalem Road

  1. All Have Sinned – Ecc 7:20, 2 Chron 6:36, Jer 17:9
  2. Consequences For Sin – Is 59:2, 64:6, Eze 18:4, Ps 9:17
  3. Shedding Of Blood For Atonement – Lev 17:11, Is 53
  4. Resurrection – Ps 16:10 (David saw corruption)
  5. You Must Trust Him – Ps 2:10,11
  6. You Must Trust Him Now – Is 55:1-6

Thoughts on DC

 

Just got back from my expedition to DC.  I truly wondered if something about the trip would rekindle my patriotism.  It did not.  I used to have patriotism.  I have had little to none since I started reading the Bible over a decade ago.  My patriotic fire has completely gone out and the only way to start it burning again would be for me to set the Bible aside, something I will never do, Lord willing.  

 

Patriotism isn’t inherently wrong or sinful.  But when you have God’s standards of righteousness and holiness and you live in a country where people openly and PROUDLY flaunt their disobedience and you still have patriotic fervor, then something is amiss.  That kind of patriotism is as wrong for the Christian as patriotism in Republican France or Soviet Russia.  

 

But, I thought that maybe I would see for myself that this is more a Christian nation than I had thought in my studies.  But now mine eyes have seen.  The nation’s capital could not be a less Christian place.  

 

This country is not on a slippery slope away from God.  It has completely left him out.  You see this clearly demonstrated by the architecture of the nation’s capital.  And, although the average American has been God fearing in a general sense, the leaders have never been.  If these “Founding Babies” (as I call them) had feared God, they would not have built so many statues to pagan gods and godessess.  Now we live in a day and age when the average American is not God fearing.  So, the leaders and the average citizen has not the “fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:18)  

 

In reference to the architecture, there is one good way to illustrate the architecture of DC.  If the city were to be buried, as is, and then dug up in 2000 years,  the archaeologists would come to a unanimous conclusion:  America was as pagan a nation as Athens and Rome.  There are statues galore and none of Christ.  This is an undeniable fact.  Had this country been a “Christian nation” at it’s founding, then it’s leaders would have made sure someone understood this.  But, there it is, in unmuteable stone: no God, no Bible, no Jesus Christ and plenty of pagan statues.

 

The “Founding Babies” undoubtably were Freemasons who absolutely rejected the Bible commands against idols and idolatry.  It is beyond comprehension how a Bible Believer could walk through those areas and think that God had any part in the place.  Over 200 years ago the desire of Christian men, including Baptists, and elite Freemasons lined up.  The average Christian in America gave his consent to the creation of a secular government by those religiously tolerant Freemasons.  That is history.  The great myth is to call those Founders, “Christians.” They were clearly not in any sense of the term.  

 

As much as I am thankful for the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, there is no reason to alter the historical record in order to justify an unbiblical patriotism and anti-biblical desire to push young Christians to get involved in the political process.  The vast majority of Independent Baptist preachers, evangelists, and leaders have rejected the Biblical injunction to stay in the battle and not entangle “himself with the affairs of this life.”  II Tim 2:4

Are churches Businesses? My critique.

This article has become quite popular.  I have edited it for clarity. 8/16/17

 

Critique of this article…

https://tonymorganlive.com/2015/06/21/church-business/

 

There is no doubt that the 21st century church is taking many cues from its business counterparts. It is a growing influence that has developed over decades. The 1960s saw the dawn of the Church Growth movement bringing the use of research to church planning. We were already in Laodicea by 1960s.  The worst apostasy of the church age (Rev 3).  The megachurch movement then brought greater resources, larger staffs, and intricate marketing campaigns among many other business-esque elements. In time, many churches began hiring Administrative and Executive Pastors in place of Associate Pastors. Today, business experience is nearly as valuable as a seminary degree within church staffing.Valuable to whom? God? Or to your pragmatic approach to church building?

All of this change has led some to resist any notion of business principles within church ministry. Bible believers who go by the Bible whether it lines up with “business principles” or not… It is not uncommon to hear a pastor argue that the church is not and should not be run like a business. I just can’t help but disagree. Given the words that Jesus spoke while on earth, there a few ways I’m convinced He does want our churches to be run more like good businesses:

Businesses stay focused on reaching new markets.
“I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.” (Luke 4:43)

Jesus refused to stay in Capernaum because he was focused on reaching other people. Good businesses also seek ways to reach groups of people with whom they have not yet connected.

What opportunities does your church have to connect with new markets?On this point there is little disagreement.

Businesses hold employees accountable.
“A servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished.” (Luke 12:47)

Too often, churches hesitate to fire employees out of a desire to practice grace. Our mission in the world is way too important to waste time and money on a problematic team member. Who defines “problematic”? There are lots of “problematic” people in the Bible, like Noah, Samuel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Micaiah, and Nehemiah.  In fact most of the great people of the Bible would have been called “problematic” by the organizations around them. Sometimes the best way to show people grace is to carefully but honestly help them take a step beyond your organization. That is modern doublespeak.  Something the Lord is not interested in. If they are going against the Bible; show them.  If they refuse to be Biblical, fire them and don’t be “careful” about it.  God’s word is at stake and that is more important than any “organization”. 

How many lives will go unchanged because you have the wrong person on your team?  It makes it all about numbers.  Do you see what this author’s goals really are?  Doing what God wants you to do is all that matters.  The results are the Lord’s and they are not a result of you manipulating the situation.  That is the difference between a Biblical church and a business.  The ends justify the means in a business, not in a church.  

Businesses make plans before they commit to projects.
“For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it?” (Luke 14:28)

In a good business, your idea doesn’t get approval until you can show how it will work, why it will work, and how much it will cost. Too often, churches approve ideas without fully considering the ramifications.  Do you see the “gain is godliness” attitude?  This attitude would condemn most the great men of Scripture including Christ himself.  Christ spent his whole ministry condemning the religious leaders of his day.  That is how you get crucified, not accolades.  The author’s ideas condemn his own Saviour.

To what level of detail do your leaders plan ahead before they begin new projects?  Only question that matters: what does God say about it?  This author doesn’t give a flip about that.  He acts like a Jesuit.

Businesses stop things that aren’t yielding results.
“Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away…” (John 15:2)

Healthy businesses take intentional steps to eliminate activities that do not contribute to a clear bottom line. That is why modern churches dumped the KJV, cross bearing, street preaching, and telling sinners that they are going to hell.  All things we are COMMANDED to preach.  That is where this mentality ends up: Laodicea, “gain is godliness”, and right back to your “mother” Rome…  Molding the message to the masses and God is on the outside looking in.  Many churches waste resources keeping nonperforming ministry programs on life support.  That’s not how God would look at it.  

Which of your ministry programs is not bearing real fruit?  What was the Lord’s fruit during his lifetime?  His disciples forsook him.  Same with Paul.  they were failures by today’s business standards.  The author would have dumped them because of their lack of fruit.  This proves that he is an idiot.  

Businesses are responsible for demonstrating a return to their investors.
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:48)

Unfortunately, many churches teach stewardship better than they practice it. I disagree that they teach it or practice it.  Good businesses understand that their money was provided by investors who expect to see something come of it. Church givers also want to see that their gifts are producing fruit. There are a lot of places they could be sowing their seed to further the Kingdom.

How would you feel if your church members received a quarterly report showing how you spent their money and the results it produced?  That’s your problem you are not looking at the Judgment Seat of Christ, you are looking for advancements down here.  When you do that you will get rewards down here, but NOT up here.  Your choice.  This author has made his choice.

So would Jesus want churches to operate more like businesses? Certainly not in every way. But I have a feeling that many church leaders could better live out the teachings of Jesus by becoming students of business operations.  That’s his problem, he is going by his “feeling”.  We walk by faith.  Our faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his Book.  This author goes by pragmatism.  He thinks that “whatever works” is best.  Ultimately this is the philosophy of the Devil himself and not Christ.



What do you think? Should churches really be run more like businesses? Share your own thoughts in a comment below…


 

Baptism Notes for your visitation Bible from a Bible Believer

Baptism

Their verses:

Acts 2:37-38 – Answers wrong question.

– Acts 16:30-31 – Correct question. No baptism in answer.

– Luke 5:12-14 – Defines the “for” to mean “because of” not “in order to get”.

– This is early in Acts to the Jews.

– Christians get Holy Ghost in Gal 3:14.

John 3:5 – Defined in vs 6. Water is first birth. Spirit is second birth.

– New birth conditioned on John 1:12.

Mark 16:16 – Belief is condition. “Unbaptism” does not send a man to hell.

I Pet 3:21 – It’s a figure, not the real salvation.

– James 1:21 – Saved by words not water.

Acts 22:16 – He’s already a brother (vs 13) and he’s accepted Christ (vs 7-10)

Seven Baptisms – Matt 3:11

1. I Cor 10:2 – Baptism of Moses.

2. John 1:26 – Baptism of John.

3. Matt 20:22 – Suffering.

4. Acts 2:38 – Jewish after crucifixion.

5. Acts 8:36-38 – Gentiles in church.

6. I Cor 12:13 – Spirit.

7. Rev 20:15 – “Fire” of Matt 3:11.

Baptism is not necessary for salvation.

I Cor 9:22,23 – Paul wanted people to be saved.

I Cor 1:14-17 – But didn’t go out with the intent to baptize. Baptism not in the gospel.

I Cor 15:3,4 – Gospel defined. No baptism.

I Cor 4:15 – Born again through the gospel. Not baptism.

Luke 23:42,43 – Example of salvation without baptism.

New Year’s Resolutions? Try 70 from Jonathan Edwards…

RESOLUTIONS

Being sensible that I am unable to do anything without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him by his grace to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake.

Remember to read over these Resolutions once a week.
1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

2. Resolved, to be continually endeavoring to find out some new invention and contrivance to promote the forementioned things.

[[3. Resolved, if ever I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep any part of these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.]]

4. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.

5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.

6. Resolved, to live with all my might, while I do live.

7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

[[8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. Vid. July 30, [1723].]]

9. Resolved, to think much on all occasions of my own dying, and of the common circumstances which attend death.

[[10. Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom, and of hell.]]

11. Resolved, when I think of any1 theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances don’t hinder.

[[12. Resolved, if I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.]

]13. Resolved, to be endeavoring to find out fit objects of charity and liberality.

14. Resolved, never to do anything out of revenge.

15. Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger to irrational beings.

[[16. Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.]]

17. Resolved, that I will live so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.

18. Resolved, to live so at all times, as I think is best in my devout frames, and when I have clearest notions of things of the gospel, and another world.

[[19. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if I expected it would not be above an hour, before I should hear the last trump.]]

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.

21. Resolved, never to do anything, which if I should see in another, I should count a just occasion to despise him for, or to think any way the more meanly of him.

[[22. Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself (as much happiness, in the other world,) as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

23. Resolved, frequently to take some deliberate action, which seems most unlikely to be done, for the glory of God, and trace it back to the original intention, designs and ends of it; and if I find it not to be for God’s glory, to repute it as a breach of the 4th Resolution.]]

24. Resolved, whenever I do any conspicuously evil action, to trace it back, till I come to the original cause; and then both carefully endeavor to do so no more, and to fight and pray with all my might against the original of it.

[[25. Resolved, to examine carefully, and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me in the least to doubt of the love of God; and to direct all my forces against it.

26. Resolved, to cast away such things, as I find do abate my assurance.

27. Resolved, never willfully to omit anything, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions.]]

28. Resolved, to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

[[29. Resolved, never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession, which I cannot hope God will accept.]]

30. Resolved, to strive to my utmost every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.

[[31. Resolved, never to say anything at all against anybody, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the Golden Rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.]]

32. Resolved, to be strictly and firmly faithful to my trust, that that in Proverbs 20:6, “A faithful man who can find?” may not be partly fulfilled in me.

33. Resolved, always to do what I can towards making, maintaining and establishing2 peace, when it can be without over-balancing detriment in other respects. [[Dec. 26, 1722.]]

34. Resolved, in narrations never to speak anything but the pure and simple verity.

[[35. Resolved, whenever I so much question whether I have done my duty, as that my quiet and calm is thereby disturbed, to set it down, and also how the question was resolved. Dec. 18, 1722.]]

36. Resolved, never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call for it. [[Dec. 19, 1722.]]

37. Resolved, to inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent, what sin I have committed, and wherein I have denied myself: also at the end of every week, month and year. [[Dec. 22 and 26, 1722.]]

38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous,3 or matter of laughter on the Lord’s day. [[Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722.]]

39. Resolved, never to do anything that I so much question the lawfulness of, as that I intend, at the same time, to consider and examine afterwards, whether it be lawful or no: except I as much question the lawfulness of the omission.

[[40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.]]

41. Resolved, to ask myself at the end of every day, week, month and year, wherein I could possibly in any respect have done better. [[Jan. 11, 1723.]]

42. Resolved, frequently to renew the dedication of myself to God,
which was made at my baptism; which I solemnly renewed, when I was received into the communion of the church; and which I have solemnly re-made this 12th day of January, 1722—23.

43. Resolved, never henceforward, till I die, to act as if I were anyway my own, but entirely and altogether God’s, agreeable to what is to be found in Saturday, Jan. 12. [[Jan. 12th, 1723.

44. Resolved, that no other end but religion, shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it. Jan. 12, 1723.

45. Resolved, never to allow any pleasure or grief, joy or sorrow, nor any affection at all, nor any degree of affection, nor any circumstance relating to it, but what helps religion. Jan. 12 and 13, 1723.]]

46. Resolved, never to allow the least measure of any fretting uneasiness at my father or mother. Resolved to suffer no effects of it, so much as in the least alteration of speech, or motion of my eye: and to be especially careful of it, with respect to any of our family.

47. Resolved, to endeavor to my utmost to deny whatever is not most agreeable to a good, and universally sweet and benevolent, quiet, peaceable, contented, easy, compassionate, generous, humble, meek, modest, submissive, obliging, diligent and industrious, charitable, even, patient, moderate, forgiving, sincere temper; and to do at all times what such a temper would lead me to. Examine strictly every week, whether I have done so. [[Sabbath morning, May 5, 1723.]]

48. Resolved, constantly, with the utmost niceness and diligence, and the strictest scrutiny, to be looking into the state of my soul, that I may know whether I have truly an interest in Christ or no; that when I come to die, I may not have any negligence respecting this to repent of. [[May 26, 1723.

49. Resolved, that this never shall be, if I can help it.]]

50. Resolved, I will act so as I think I shall judge would have been best, and most prudent, when I come into the future world. [[July 5, 1723.

51. Resolved, that I will act so, in every respect, as I think I shall wish I had done, if I should at last be damned. July 8, 1723.]]

52. I frequently hear persons in old age say how they would live, if they were to live their lives over again: resolved, that I will live just so as I can think I shall wish I had done, supposing I live to old age. [[July 8, 1723.

53. Resolved, to improve every opportunity, when I am in the best and happiest frame of mind, to cast and venture my soul on the Lord Jesus Christ, to trust and confide in him, and consecrate myself wholly to him; that from this I may have assurance of my safety, knowing that I confide in my Redeemer. July 8, 1723.]]

54. Whenever I hear anything spoken in commendation4 of any person, if I think it would be praiseworthy in me, resolved to endeavor to imitate it. [[July 8, 1723.]]

55. Resolved, to endeavor to my utmost to act as I can think I should do, if I had already seen the happiness of heaven, and hell torments. [[July 8, 1723.]]

56. Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

57. Resolved, when I fear misfortunes and adversities, to examine whether I have done my duty, and resolve to do it; and let it be just as providence orders it, I will as far as I can, be concerned about nothing but my duty and my sin. [[June 9 and July 13, 1723.

58. Resolved, not only to refrain from an air of dislike, fretfulness, and anger in conversation, but to exhibit an air of love, cheerfulness and benignity. May 27 and July 13, 1723.

59. Resolved, when I am most conscious of provocations to ill-nature and anger, that I will strive most to feel and act good-naturedly; yea, at such times, to manifest good nature, though I think that in other respects it would be disadvantageous, and so as would be imprudent at other times. May 12, July 11, and July 13.

60. Resolved, whenever my feelings begin to appear in the least out of order, when I am conscious of the least uneasiness within, or the least irregularity without, I will then subject myself to the strictest examination. July 4 and 13, 1723.

61. Resolved, that I will not give way to that listlessness which I find unbends and relaxes my mind from being fully and fixedly set on religion, whatever excuse I may have for it–that what my listlessness inclines me to do, is best to be done, etc. May 21 and July 13, 1723.]]

62. Resolved, never to do anything but duty; and then according to Ephesians 6:6-8, do it willingly and cheerfully “as unto the Lord, and not to man; knowing that whatever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord.” [[June 25 and July 13, 1723.

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true luster, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: resolved, to act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time. Jan. 14 and July 13, 1723.

64. Resolved, when I find those “groanings which cannot be uttered,” of which the Apostle speaks [Romans 8:26], and those “breakings of soul for the longing it hath,” of which the Psalmist speaks, Psalms 119:20, that I will promote them to the utmost of my power, and that I will not be weary of earnestly endeavoring to vent my desires, nor of the repetitions of such earnestness. July 23 and Aug. 10, 1723.]]

65. Resolved, very much to exercise myself in this all my life long, viz. with the greatest openness I am capable of, to declare my ways to God, and lay open my soul to him: all my sins, temptations, difficulties, sorrows, fears, hopes, desires, and everything, and every circumstance; according to Dr. Manton’s 27th sermon on the 119th Psalm.5 [[July 26 and Aug. 10, 1723.

66. Resolved, that I will endeavor always to keep a benign aspect, and air of acting and speaking in all places, and in all companies, except it should so happen that duty requires otherwise.]]

67. Resolved, after afflictions, to inquire, what I am the better for them, what good I have got by them, and what I might have got by them.[[68. Resolved, to confess frankly to myself all that which I find in myself, either infirmity or sin; and, if it be what concerns religion, also to confess the whole case to God, and implore needed help. July 23 and Aug. 10, 1723.

69. Resolved, always to do that, which I shall wish I had done when I see others do it. Aug. 11, 1723.

70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak. Aug. 17, 1723.]]

Hitchens KJV-Only?

In case you are wondering who we are talking about, this is unashamed God-hater Christopher Hitchens (who has since gone on to give an account to that God who he hated so much, unfortunately.)

 

When recalling the funeral service of his conservative, British navy veteran father, whom he called “the commander,” he describes how he chose Philippians 4:8 as a reading, hedging that he selected the text “for its non-religious yet high moral character” (p. 45):

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things arelovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

After citing the verse in the KJV, Hitchens adds:

Try looking that up in a “modern” version of the New Testament (Philippians 4:8) and see what a ration of bland doggerel you get.  I shall never understand how the keepers and trustees of the King James Version threw away such a treasure (p. 46).

 

Source: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/12/hitchens-on-king-james-version.html

Critique of Ambassador Bible College’s “Textual Position”

https://ambassadors.edu/AboutUs/TextualPosition.php

I saw a meeting on a schedule that is headed up by the president of Ambassador Bible College.  This is their “Textual Position.”  My comments are in parenthesis and bold.

TEXTUAL POSITION OF ABC

What We Believe About the Bible

by Dr. Charles L. Surrett, Academic Dean

An often-debated issue in Fundamentalist circles these days is the matter of Bible translations and textual differences.(What could be more important than the issue of Final Authority?) This has forced all of us to become some kind of “textual critics,” in order to define and defend the positions we take. (I am not a “critic”, the word of God is MY critic in Hebrews 4:12)  This article is intended to clarify the position of Ambassador Baptist College regarding the text of the Scriptures. There is not room here to offer proof of all of our conclusions, but we certainly want to make them clear.(It’s clear: you’re apostate…)  The following is a list of six assertions about the Bible that we have distributed to our faculty, staff, and students, in an attempt to avoid the “pendulum swings” of extremism without compromising our beliefs:

  • We believe…

  • …that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs.  (No scripture given… because this belief cannot be found in the Bible.)
  • …that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings.
  • …that inspiration applied only to the autographs,(Impossible.  Look at the context of 2 Tim 3:16. Vs 15 says Timothy had inspired Scripture as a kid.)  but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation.
  • …that God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament (Baloney.  See what the Jews changed in Psalm 22 to get rid of the prophecies of the Crucifixion.)  and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament. (Which TR? There are almost 20 of them.  This is the issue.  They have no final authority. They do address this later…)
  • …that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available, not only because it is an excellent translation, but because it is a translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts.  (Best according to whose standards?)
  • …that consistency in position demands that we use only the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts and the KJV translation in our classrooms and chapel services. (See that word “and”?  That means that their own minds are the final arbiter between the two sets of authorities.  Practical Atheists.  Apostates of the worst kind.)

These six statements essentially explain the position of Ambassador Baptist College. For the sake of further clarity, some of them will be expanded here. Regarding the preservation of Scripture, some institutions that are considered Fundamentalist have disavowed that God has even promised to preserve His Word. Ambassador’s thinking is that this view is negated by Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89-90, 144, 152, 160; Isaiah 40:8; 59:21; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 21:33; John 10:35; Acts 7:38; and I Peter 1:25. Since it is our desire to see the Bible as the only authority for faith and practice, (Which one? You have already stated at least 3 Bibles that you believe in.) we do not see how all of these passages can be “explained away” by those who reject the fact that God has promised to preserve His Word.

Regarding the choice of the Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament, Ambassador rejects the Westcott-Hort theory of textual transmission, although we appreciate those editors honestly (W and H are some of the biggest liars ever.  For proof read Dean Burgon.)  acknowledging their own uncertainty by the frequent usage of terms like “conjecture,” “probabilities,” “presumptions,” “ambiguity,” “suppositions,” etc., in their explanatory notes. We have chosen to accept, rather, that which has been available to the largest number of believers for the greatest period of time in church history, which is the stream of texts represented by the Textus Receptus. More specifically, we use the text published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, which follows Beza’s 1598 edition and Scrivener’s edition of 1894.  (How do you get your definitions of the Greek words?  They will have to go back to unsaved philosophers and writers who wrote in Attic Greek for the definitions of Koine Greek.  That is how you screw up places like Acts 12:4.  The King James translators were one generation removed from the speakers of Byzantine Greek who fled the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.  That stage of Greek is much closer to the Koine Greek of Paul.  They would know the correct definitions of Koine Greek.  We would not.  Also, why Beza’s 1598 edition?  How many souls have been won by that?  What about where it contradicts the KJV?)  

Regarding the usage of the King James Version, we believe that it was very well-translated, but that the English language has undergone some changes in the past, (no crap, Sherlock) as is partially reflected in the fact that the KJV in widespread use today is not, in fact, the 1611 version. (When read out loud, the King James is the same as in 1611 minus regional pronunciation.)  Since English is a living language, the modern-day connotations of words such as “conversation,” “charity,” and (sadly) “gay,” is much different from their 1611 meanings. Therefore, it is wisest to consult the original languages, where the Divine intent is unchanged. (Baloney.  They can go to Greek words that have 5 different definitions.  This is especially true of prepositions.  No one thinks that “gay” in James means “sodomite”.  That is a poor example.) This will not refute the KJV, but will keep us from changing the meanings of Old English words to conform to modern usages. (Romans 12:2, anyone?)

Regarding our attitude toward those Fundamentalists who disagree with us, we believe that we should reflect the principles of II Timothy 2:24; Romans 14:1-6; Ephesians 4:3; and James 3:17. We recognize that, as servants of the Lord we “must not strive, but be gentle,” we must not “despise or judge,” we must “endeavor” to keep unity, and that heavenly wisdom is “first pure, then peaceable.” (That is devilish wisdom.  Paul and Christ attacked heretics their whole ministry.  What happened to being valiant for the truth?)  For example, as Fundamentalists we do not castigate the late C. I. Scofield or doubt either his salvation or sincerity on the basis of his Gap Theory beliefs of creation. (Scofield actually got the Gap Fact right.  See my article.)  We simply know that he and others of his era did not have the information to combat what they thought were conclusions forced by science and scholarship. (1 Tim 6:20, anyone?  Scofield was right.) Perhaps the debate on the textual issue will produce some “Whitcomb and Morris” of the Greek text, bringing to light information that will persuade Fundamentalists that the long-standing, widely-accepted text was actually the best one after all. It is our hope that, just as the mainstream of Fundamentalism has returned to the long-held belief in creationism,(Mainstream is wrong again.  Go figure…)  the same group will return to the long-held usage of the Textus Receptus. (You mean, multiple final authorities?  That is most definitely not the long-held doctrine of the body of Christ.)  In the meantime, we are willing to fellowship with those Fundamentalists who have not yet come to these same conclusions.

Another fool goes after the KJV.

This joker attacks the King James and guess what: the King James Bible stands…

My comments are in ALL CAPS.

Six Reasons To Not Follow “King James Version-onlyism”

By Pastor K. Bruce Oyen

First Baptist Church

Spearfish, SD

  

First, don’t follow KJV-onlyism because it seems to imply that the Bible was not in English prior to the KJV.

  KJV–only literature emphasizes the idea that only the KJV is God’s Word in English. If that is true, what were English Bible translations before the KJV was published? Are we to assume that they were not really Bibles? Or, are we to assume that they ceased to be Bibles when the KJV was printed in 1611?

  What are the pre-KJV English Bibles? The Wycliffe Bible (1382); Tyndale’s Bible (1525-1534); Coverdale’s Bible (1535); Thomas Matthew’s Bible (1537); the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible (1557-1560); the Bishop’s Bible (1568).

  If these translations were the Word of God when they were first published, they still are the Word of God. And if that is true, we cannot say that the King James Version alone is the Word of God in English.

MY COMMENT: THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE WERE NOT AS PURE AS THE KJV.  SEE THE EXACT WORDING OF PSALM 12:6,7

Second, don’t follow KJV-onlyism for the simple reason that the KJV generally used today is different in substance from the 1611 KJV.

  Followers of KJV-onlyism make much of using the “1611 KJV.” But most of them seem unaware of the fact that most of them do not use it. The commonly-used KJV is different from the 1611 edition in substance, not just in spelling, and type-style, and punctuation.

  On page 217 of his book, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, E. F. Hills wrote: “Two editions of the King James Version were published in 1611. The first is distinguished from the second by a unique misprint, namely, Judas instead of Jesus in Matthew 26:36. The second edition corrected this mistake, and also in other respects was – more carefully done. Other editions followed in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617 and frequently thereafter. In 1629 and 1638 the text was subjected to two minor revisions. In the 18th century the spelling and punctuation of the King James version were modernized, and many obsolete words were changed to their modern equivalents. The two scholars responsible for these alterations were Dr. Thomas Paris (1762) of Cambridge, and Dr. Benjamin Blayney (1769) of Oxford, and it is to their efforts that the generally current form of the King James Version is due.”

  Note that the text was subjected to revisions!

 Evangelist Gary Hudson wrote a valuable article called, The Myth of No Revision  in which he listed over seventy examples of how the text of the 1611 KJV differs from what is used by most KJV readers today. Four examples of textual changes are given here:

2 Kings 11:10, 1611 KJV: “in the temple

2 Kings 11:10, current KJV: “in the temple of the Lord

1 Chronicles 7:5, 1611 KJV: “were men of might

1 Chronicles 7:5, current KJV: “were valiant men of might

Matthew 12:23, 1611 KJV: “Is this the son of David?

Matthew 12:23, current KJV: “Is not this the son of David?

I John 5:12, 1611 KJV: “he that hath not the Son, hath not life

I John 5:12, current KJV: “he that hath not the Son of God hath not life

 Have you ever seen stickers on envelopes that say, “Use the Bible God Uses: 1611 KJV”? Or, have you seen advertisements for churches which say something like “Standing for the 1611 KJV” ? Well, it is very likely that they think they are using the original KJV, but are not doing so. A simple comparison of their King James Bibles with the 1611 edition might reveal something they will be surprised by.

 While there is nothing wrong with having a preference for the King James Version, we should not make claims that probably are not accurate. Facts are stubborn things, and one can easily verify the accuracy of those who claim to be using the original King James Version.

  Since it is easily proven that the KJV usually used today is substantially different from the 1611 edition, KJV-only advocates are faced with a dilemma: they must decide which edition is God’s Word in English.

MY COMMENT:  TO SAY THE THE BOOK IN MY HANDS IS “SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT” THAN THE 1611 KJV IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.  THE CHANGES ARE OF NO SUBSTANCE.  MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE A LOT MORE.  ANY COMPARISON WILL PROVE ME CORRECT. ALSO, MOST OF THE CHANGES WERE MADE BY THE TRANSLATORS THEMSELVES WHO WERE CORRECTING ERRORS OF THE PRINTERS.  MY BIBLE IS THE SAME AS THE ONE IN 1611 WITH A FEW CHANGES TO TYPESETTING.  WHEN READ ALOUD, IT IS THE SAME WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCES BEING REGIONAL PRONUNCIATION.  

Third, don’t follow KJV-onlyism because it attributes infallibility to the KJV, something not done by its Translators.

  The original edition of the KJV has some very interesting and informative introductory material which enables us to see what the Translators thought of their own work. I am referring to The Epistle Dedicatory, and to a lengthy piece called The Translators to the Readers.

  In The Epsitle Dedicatory, the Translators dedicated their translation to King James. In their dedication we discover that they did not consider their work to be infallible, as the following quotation proves: “There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in your Majesty: but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto your Majesty. For when your Highness had once out of deep judgement apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; Your Majesty did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.”

  Since the translators who made the King James Version considered their work to be “one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue,” should we make more of it than they did?

  In The Translators To The Reader, we find that they did not look upon their translation the way many do now. For instance, page seven says: “Now to the latter (the Puritans) we answer that we do not deny, nay we affirm, and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, not withstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”

  Therefore, we should not consider the King James Version to be infallible when the translators themselves denied it.

MY COMMENT: PAUL DID NOT THINK WE WAS INSPIRED IN FIRST CORINTHIANS 7:10.  DOES THAT MEAN HE WASN’T INSPIRED.  “KNOWING YOUR INSPIRED” IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT WAS INSPIRED.  THAT IS A MAN-MADE RULE.

A fourth reason we should not follow KJV-onlyism is that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition reveal that the translators themselves were often uncertain of how words and verses should be translated into English.

  Most KJV Bibles have few or none of these marginal notes. One should purchase a 1611 edition from Thomas Nelson Publishers so that the notes can be read. They are very interesting, informative, and perhaps unnerving to advocates of KJV-­onlyism.

 On page 216 of his book, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, E. F. Hills said some important things about those notes. Consider his statements carefully: “The marginal notes which the translators attached to the King James Version indicated how God guided their labors providentially. According to Scrivener (1884), there are 8,422 marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, including the Apocrypha. In the Old Testament, Scrivener goes on to say, 4,111 of the marginal notes give the more literal meaning of the Hebrew or Aramaic, 2,156 give alternative translations, and 67 give variant readings. In the New Testament 112 of the marginal notes give literal rendering of the Greek, 582 give alternative translations, and 37 give variant readings. These marginal notes show us that the translators were guided providentially through their thought processes, through weighing every possibility and choosing that which seemed to them best.”

Two paragraphs later, Hills wrote, “As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God’s holy Word, and as such they commended it to their Christian reader.”

  The conclusion to be drawn from their many notes is obvious: If they were often unsure of themselves, should we attribute infallibility to their translation? No, we should make neither more nor less of their work than they did.

MY COMMENT:  SAME AS MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.  “BEING SURE OF THEMSELVES” IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO BEING USED BY GOD.  

A fifth reason not to follow KJV-onlyism is that it condemns modern translators for doing what the KJV translators themselves did by putting marginal notes in the Bible.

  In reading KJV-only literature, one soon learns that it is unacceptable to put any notes in Bible margins that can make the reader “uncertain” of how a verse should be translated, or that can make one question whether or not a verse should be in the Bible at all. For instance, one pamphlet concerning the NIV says: “Even though NIV includes a weaker translation of this (Matt. 21:44) in the text, the footnote says, ‘Some manuscripts omit vs. 44.’ This is a rather strong suggestion that it may not belong in the Bible at all. Matt. 12:47; 16:3; and Luke 22:43, 44 are treated by the NIV in the same shoddy and shameful way. To the uninformed reader, such footnotes will tend to destroy confidence in the Bible as the Word of God.”

 While I understand this concern, the facts prove that the original KJV was “guilty” of the same thing. For example, the KJV marginal note for Luke 10:22 says, ‘Many ancient copies add these words, “and turning to his disciples he said.’” And the notation of Luke 17:36 says, “This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” We should remember the fact that the 1611 KJV Old Testament has 2,156 alternate translations in its margins, and the New Testament has 582 in its margins. Aren’t such extensive marginal notes in the original KJV just as likely to “destroy confidence in the Bible as the Word of God” as those in other translations are said to do?

MY COMMENT: IF YOU THINK THAT THE MAIN CRITIQUE OF “SCHOLARSHIP-ONLYISM” IS THE MODERN VERSION’S USE OF FOOTNOTES, THEN YOU DON’T KNOW THE ISSUE (AND THEREFORE ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO WRITE ON THE ISSUE).  THE PROBLEM WITH THE MV’S FOOTNOTES IS THAT THEY TAKE WHOLE VERSES OUT OF THE TEXT AND PUT THEM IN THE FOOTNOTES.  IN THE CASE OF MARK 16: 12 VERSES ARE CAST DOUBT UPON.  THIS IS NOTHING LIKE WHAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS DID AND TO CLAIM OTHERWISE IS BEING DECEITFUL.

A sixth reason not to follow KJV-onlyism is because the KJV is the product of the Church of England.

  As a Baptist, I believe in the Biblical distinctives of Baptists, two of which are (1) the separation of church and state, and (2) the immersion of believers. I would not have speakers in our church if they deny these doctrines. Therefore, I could not have any of the translators of the King James Version preach in my pulpit. They believed in, and were members of the Church of England, a state church. Furthermore, they believed in baptismal regeneration, whereas Baptists believe in regeneration by the Word of God and by the work of Holy Spirit.

In their epistle of dedication of the King James Version, its translators expressed their “great hope that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby.” The fact that the KJV was produced by the Church of England does not mean that it should not be used. But it does mean that if Baptists are going to be consistent with their theology, they must admit that the translators of the KJV would not qualify to join their churches.

  Consequently, it does not make sense that so many Baptists are crusading for the exclusive use of the King James Version. How can Baptists crusade for the exclusive use of a translation produced by a denomination that promotes beliefs that oppose Baptist beliefs?

In Conclusion:

  We would do well to adopt the view of the KJV’s translators about their work. In their epistle of dedication to King James they stated that their work was “one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue.”

  Furthermore, we would do well to remember that in The Translators To The Reader, they said: “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that hath been our mark.

 We also should remember what E.F. Hills wrote on page 216 of his book, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED: “As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God’s holy Word, and as such they commended it to their Christian readers…”

  It is with such an opinion of the King James Version that we, too, can commend it to readers, both Christian and non-Christian. But we have good reasons to not follow KJV-onlyism.

MY COMMENT: I KNOW WHAT A “BRIDER” WILL SAY TO THIS, BUT LET ME ASK ANYWAYS.  WAS PAUL A BAPTIST? WAS CHRIST? WAS MOSES?  BEING A BAPTIST IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO BEING USED BY GOD.  (ALTHOUGH AMBITIOUS BAPTIST PREACHERS WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK SO.)  ALSO, THE KJV TRANSLATORS WERE ABOUT HALF ANGLICAN AND HALF DISSENTERS (CALVINIST, PRESBYTERIAN, ETC).  TO CLAIM OTHERWISE IS TO BE DECEITFUL.

(This article is a re-write of my original article, called, “Why I cannot follow KJV-onlyism.”)

MY COMMENT: ONCE MORE, THE KING JAMES IS VINDICATED.  THIS POOR FUNNYMENTALIST PROVIDES NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE BELIEF IN THE KING JAMES THAT I HAVE ON MY DESK.  HIS HIGHEST AUTHORITY IS HIS OWN BRAIN, JUST LIKE ANY ATHEIST.