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.

Answers to “70 Questions For King James Only Advocates”

 

These questions are found at the Church of Christ website entitled www.bible.ca.  These people are dangerous heretics that teach the damnable doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.  There are other teachings espoused on this website that a Bible Believer needs to be wary of.  The following series of questions come from an article on the site called “questions for KJV-only advocates” which is supposedly written by a man named Steve Rudd.  Steve Rudd’s questions are numbered and in bold.  He advocates no other alternative from the King James Only position.  He is too foolish to know the difference between the two separate positions of King James Only and Textus Receptus Only.  The author of these answers writes from the position of King James Only.

Edit: sorry that the typesetting is off.  Copy/Paste never works like it should…

 

  • Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.

 

      1. None are “revisions”.  They corrected spelling and grammar issues and none of them contradict.  This is completely unlike the modern versions which contradict hundreds of times.  Answer: all of them.  But not the “New” King James Version.

 

  • What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.

 

      1. This is grossly misrepresenting our position.  I don’t worship the King James Bible.  I worship the God who preserved it and gave it by inspiration (II Tim 3:15,16).  Also, there were Bibles before 1611, they just weren’t PURIFIED as the requirements of Psalm 12:6,7 say that God’s words will be. Before I answer, I would like to throw the question back to the writer: “What do you recommend to people AFTER 1611?”  I know he has no answer.  To answer the perverted question, I would have recommended one of the not-yet-purified English and foreign language Bibles.  Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, Geneva, and the Bishop’s Bible were part of the purification process.  So were the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin (old Itala), Gothic (of Ulfilas), and German (Luther) Bibles.  

 

  • Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.

 

      1. If this is a question, then the answer is Yes. I want to know this, “Does Steve Rudd know that no one THINKS that Paul used the KJV?”

 

  • Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

 

      1. I reject them for the reasons that the King James translators themselves rejected the apocrypha.  These reasons are public knowledge. They were part of the Bible as a historical note, just like the Dedicatory.  None of the translators believed the Apocrypha to be inspired. I ask, “Does Steve Rudd know that the Greek texts that form the basis of the modern versions both INCLUDE the apocrypha?”  I am referencing Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus.  

 

  • If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:

 

      1. I don’t see how that disqualifies them.  So they thought that there was a cross reference to the apocrypha.  I have never met anyone who believed that the marginal references were inspired.  Paul referenced heathen poets in Acts 17 and Titus 1.  That does not mean the poets were inspired and it does not mean Paul was NOT inspired.  

 

  • If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!

 

      1. I see no where in scripture where God’s revelation is limited to Koine Greek.  What about the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament?  There is no question so I cannot answer anything, but I would wonder if Steve Rudd knows that no one speaks Koine Greek today.  So to get a translation of the Greek Bibles, a man has to go back to the Greek of the philosophers and poets (Attic for example).  No one knows how different these two dialects may have been.   

 

  • If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

 

      1. King James believers argue about this question and there are no definite answers in scripture.  Again I ask, “Why do you care, Steve Rudd?  You don’t think any language has inspired scripture.”  The fact is that the King James is inspired Scripture and the final authority.  I suppose the best answer is that, if God inspired scripture in every language there would be multiple Final Authorities and that would be a contradiction of terms.

 

  • If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

 

      1. Why would you suppose that he would?  If only the original writings were inspired, did those originals have ANY misspellings or grammar mistakes?  How would you know?  We don’t have originals.  Every Greek text has grammatical errors in it.  These are called anacoluthon. Another questions would be: how far would you take this?  Were there any water marks or smudges on the originals?  The KJV-only position is that the book I have in my hands is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:15,16).  Steve Rudd cannot provide a viable alternative.

 

  • Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!

 

      1. They had no clue that they were writing a book that would be inspired.  Neither did Paul. (I Cor 7:12).  Clearly, you don’t have to know that your writings will be inspired for them to be inspired.  God did not use the marginal notes just as He did not use the apocrypha.  Most modern KJV Bibles do not include either of them.

 

  • If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?

 

      1. Paul did not either(I Cor 7:12).  Steve Rudd cannot prove that ALL the writers of scripture did not know they were inspired.  This is a false requirement.

 

  • Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from “The Translators to the Reader.”?

 

      1. They were not given by inspiration and they can be removed based on what the printer desires.  The Scriptures are given by inspiration.  These additional parts are not.  

 

  • When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?

 

      1. They can’t both be right.  That would mean there are 2 final authorities.  God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor 14:33)  Why would you assume that the TR Greek is right and the KJV English is wrong?  Our position is based on fruit. (Matt 7:20)  Over the past 400 years, millions have been won to Christ with the KJV.   Who has been won by the TR Greek in the last 2000 years?  Not half that.  There are other arguments that point to the King James, but the “fruit argument” is quite solid.  

 

  • If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?

 

      1. Word-for-word inspiration is not the same as word-for-word translation.  The second is impossible.  Steve Rudd knows that the italics were put in by the translators to show that the word was not in their Greek text.  It demonstrates their honesty.  On the reverse, the translators of modern versions add words, but don’t have the honesty to show it by putting the additions in italics.  The King James translators put the words in italics and THEN God inspired their text.

 

  • In defending the KJV’s use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?

 

      1. Most days of reading my Bible, I do NOT have to consult a dictionary.  I am not an exception.  The King James takes some getting used to, but the reader quickly sees that 99+% of the time, the definition of the “archaic” words is clear in the context.

 

  • Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If “God’s truth should not be copyrighted” then why do they copy write their defenses of God’s ultimate truth, the Bible?

 

      1. Does Steve Rudd not know the difference between the truth and a defense of the truth?  The first is a work of God and the second is a work of man.  Defenses of the truth are copyrighted so the writer can get a wage for his work (Luke 10:7).  The King James Bible is a work of God.  
      2. Of course we know that eventually all modern versions will lose their copyright, but there is something sinister when I have to pay someone to use their material when they claim that they are putting out God’s truth.

 

  • Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn’t? Is this not the ultimate example of “translation worship”? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)

 

      1. It’s not ridiculous.  The TR Greek is a part of the purification process.  By definition, it is not as pure as the finished product.  This is not hard to understand.  Again, I don’t worship the KJV, I worship the God who gave it by inspiration.  To claim otherwise, is a lie.  

 

  • Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?

 

      1. Is there any proof of this?  The line of transmission that the TR Greek is a part of, has the backing of literally 1000s of manuscripts.  The changes of the modern versions are based on old manuscripts that have the backing of only a couple of manuscripts.  1000s versus a couple?  I take the 1000s.  Steve Rudd needs to read up on his manuscript evidence.

 

  • If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English – a translation of a translation of a translation?

 

      1. The TR Greek is not error free.  You gave a good example of why it is not.  Thank you.  The King James Bible has been purified and made better than the TR Greek.  That is the KJV only position.

 

  • Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an “archaic English” dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 “tremble”; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between “agape” and “phileo” love words.)

 

      1. Greek dictionaries are the work of men.  The writers of these books are NOT inspired.  We can use tremble as an example.  It could mean your definition or it could just mean tremble.  This makes me wonder, “Demons have skin?”  Also, the KJV is the only Bible that makes a good distinction between “phileo” and “agape” in I Cor 13, which all the new versions revert back to “love.”  The KJV translators knew all about the subtle shades of meaning of the Greek words for “love” and translated accordingly.  But Steve Rudd wouldn’t know that, he hasn’t looked into it.  

 

  • Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn’t God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God’s “mate selection manual.” Also, Isa 22 “He prophesieth Shebna’s deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution” This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)

 

      1. Steve Rudd needs to ask this question to someone who believes that the chapter headings are inspired.  This questioning of “Why would God…” is unproductive.   The answer is almost always, “Because he just did or didn’t.”  He is also incorrect about the Song of Solomon not being a type of Christ and the Church.  I’d like to see where that doesn’t fit.  

 

  • Why would the translators use book headings like “The Gospel According to Saint Luke” since the Greek merely says “The Gospel According to Luke”. Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of “sainthood”?

 

      1. All Christians are saints.  See the introduction to just about every one of Paul’s epistles.  It is not wrong to call Luke, Saint Luke.  To call Luke, Saint Luke, is to distinguish him from the other men named Luke that have existed throughout church history.  The KJV translators watched their fellow Protestants burnt at the stakes by Catholics.  Few would be dumb enough to think that these men would by influenced by Catholic doctrine.  Apparently, Steve Rudd is dumb enough.  Their doctrine was far from pure, but it was closer to the truth than water dogs like Steve Rudd.

 

  • Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an “inspired translation”? (Mormon’s believe Joseph Smith’s English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)

 

      1. This changes nothing.  Does Steve Rudd know that Muslims believe the same thing as he does about Bible translations?  Both believe there is no inspired translation of the Bible on earth today.  Maybe he does or maybe he doesn’t, but it doesn’t change much.  Also, there are MANY other reasons to not believe the Book of Mormon other than their printing errors.

 

  • Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?

 

      1. The modern versions do not have the same kind of mistakes.  They are Catholic translations that take away truth from EVERY correct doctrine of the scriptures.  

 

  • Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like “unicorn” for wild ox, “satyr” for “wild goat”, “cockatrice” for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?

 

      1. Thank you for assuming that you are right as you ask the question.  There is no proof that those creatures are not real creatures.  Again, Steve Rudd does NOT know the “real name of these creatures.”  He assumes he does. Remember Satyr and Cockatrice are devilish animals that zoologists have no access to.  

 

  • If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between “Devil and Demons” (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; “hades and hell” (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14).

 

      1. It is wrong to assume that this is an error.  “To see” and “to visualize” could both be translated by the same word in other languages.  Nevertheless, these distinctions are clear in the English.  The devil is singular.  Devils are plural.  By not translating as “demons”, the King James gives the moral nature of the beings.  In ancient Greek, “demons” could be good or bad.  No one thinks “Devils” are good, except Satanists.  Again, Rev 20 is referring to the “Lake of Fire” not just hell.  They are two distinct places in the KJV.

 

  • Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were (Rudd spelled this wrong) none exist?

 

      1. The context is always different so the translation will always be different.  These are not all quotations of Gen 15:6.  That is a lie.  No one believes that there are 4 different things going on in those verses.  Steve Rudd is creating distinctions “where” none exist.

 

  • Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one “like the Son of God” instead of “like a son of God”, even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent “His angel” to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion’s confession in Mt 27:54.)

 

      1. Steve Rudd demonstrates his limited understanding of the Greek and Hebrew languages  in this question.  Greek articles are impossible to have a consistent rule for translating into English.  The Greek NT is filled with, literally rendered, “the Jesus the Christ.”  That would look dumb in English.  So their rule was to go by the context.  Every translation does the same thing.  His example is easily proven to be an error, not in the KJV, but in his understanding of doctrine.  That angel in the fire of Dan 3 was Jesus Christ himself, who is called throughout the Bible, “the Angel of the Lord” (Acts 27:23).  “A” son of God could be lots of different things.

 

  • How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase “book of life” is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read “tree of life”?

 

      1. The TR is not perfect and error free.  Now Steve Rudd is failing to differentiate between KJV-only and TR-only.  He is demonstrating the purification process of Psalm 12:6,7 that resulted in the King James Bible.

 

  • How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)

 

      1. Steve Rudd is either lying or grossly uninformed of manuscript evidence.  Probably, he is both.  He needs to study the gender of the pronouns in the verse and see that they do not work without the masculine pronouns that are omitted.  To omit those words leaves a grammatical error in the text.  Beyond that, the words are found in manuscript 61, 88 and the old Latin and Old Syrian.  It is quoted by Cyprian (250 AD), Clarus and Priscillian (385 AD), Cassiodorus (500 AD), Athanasius (350 AD), and Tertullian (200 AD).

 

  • How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of “seraphims” rather than “seraphim”?

 

      1. This “error” is actually all through the OT.  It is strange that Steve Rudd could only find it once.  Basically, the translators were transliterating the word and then adding the “s” to show people who don’t speak Hebrew, that the word is plural.  This is called, “making it easier to understand”.  It still went over Steve Rudd’s head.

 

  • Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”?  If so, how do we know “it” is perfect?   If not, why do some “limit” “the word of God” to only ONE “17th Century English” translation?  Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611?  Did our Pilgrim Fathers have “the word of God” when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?

 

      1. What is necessary is to find something that God inspired (II Tim 3:16).  He clearly inspired the King James.  There are many reasons why and the main reason is the fruit of the King James (Matt 7:20).  Very few people have gotten saved with other versions and the Geneva has had more than 400 years to bear fruit.  It has not.  The Geneva Bible is part of the purification process for the King James.  Besides, who is Steve Rudd to say that KJV only “limits” the word of God.  He believes that the word of God is ONLY in some lost manuscripts that are in a language no one can read.  Who is really “limiting”?  

 

  • Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the very meanest [poorest] translation” is still “the word of God”?

 

      1. “Liars” implies that it was deliberate.  Those great men did not know what God was going to do with Bible translations.  Men today, who have looked into the issue, have no such excuse.  

 

  • Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are “the word of God”?

 

      1. In a general sense, yes.  But are they the exact words of God, no.  Are they given by inspiration, no.  

 

  • Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?

 

      1. No.

 

  • Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?

 

      1. Yes.

 

  • Is ANY translation “inspired”?  Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?

 

      1. Yes.  Everyone who believes in the Bible, in a general sense, believes that.  The NT quotes the OT Hebrew in Greek.  That is a translation.   No one denies that those are “inspired translations” in Greek.  When Moses and Pharaoh spoke to each other in Exodus, did they speak in Hebrew or Egyptian?  Surely they spoke in Egyptian.  But God inspired a translation into Hebrew for the OT.  This is not a radical idea.

 

  • Is the KJV “scripture” ? Is IT “given by inspiration of God”?  [2 Tim. 3:16]

 

      1. Yes

 

  • WHEN was the KJV “given by inspiration of God” – 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?

 

      1. Every King James Bible ever published was given by inspiration of God at whatever date it was printed. Unless is had the word “New” in front of it.  

 

  • In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

 

      1. It doesn’t say.  You can imply Hebrew.  But you could also imply English.  It is not clear.

 

  • Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

 

      1. Nowhere.  This whole thing was based on the choices that men have made in history.  England accepted the Bible (in a general sense) and God took the empire around the world.  That is the language that God chose to put his final purification.  Counter question:  Where does it say in the OT that God would choose Greek for the NT?  Nowhere.  But it happened.  Same with the KJV English.

 

  • Did God lose the words of the originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?

 

      1. No.  This question would be better asked to Steve Rudd.  He thinks that they were.  In the purification process, is the silver lost when it is refined?  No, it’s the same with the Bible.

 

  • Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the original Greek”? [title page of KJV N.T.]  Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original Greek” to translate from?

 

      1. They clearly meant the original Greek language, not the original Greek text.

 

  • Was “the original Greek” lost after 1611?

 

      1. The text of it was probably look around 150 AD.

 

  • Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?

 

      1. No.  But they didn’t have the words of God that were purified seven times.  That came in 1611.  

 

  • What copy or translations of “the word of God,” used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?  [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].

 

      1. None.  They needed to be purified. (Psalm 12:6,7)

 

  • If the KJV is “God’s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people,” did the “English-speaking people” have  “the word of God” from 1525-1604?

 

      1. Yes, but it wasn’t purified.  

 

  • Was Tyndale’s [1525], or Coverdale’s [1535], or Matthew’s [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?

 

      1. No, and I’ve said why many times now.

 

  • If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be “born again” by the “incorruptible word of God”? [1 Peter 1:23]

 

      1. I don’t see how this question relates to the issue at hand.  The KJV is absolutely inerrant.  But a man could get saved without the King James Bible in front of him, it happens all the time.  

 

  • If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need correction or improvement?

 

      1. Yes.  That’s what Psalm 12:6,7 says.

 

  • Since most “KJV-Onlyites” believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired “scripture” [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:  but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” would you not therefore reason thus – “For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man:  but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”?

 

      1. No, This has nothing to do with the King James Bible, it is a reference to the preaching of the prophets.  Notice that verse says “spake” not wrote.  I believe God helped them write and then inspired what they wrote.  Steve Rudd needs a lesson on logic.

 

  • Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture – “whom ye” [Cambridge KJV’s] or, “whom he” [Oxford KJV’s] at Jeremiah 34:16?

 

      1. Both. Matt 23:34

 

  • Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture – “sin” [Cambridge KJV’s] or “sins” [Oxford KJV’s] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?

 

      1. Both.  Matt 23:34

 

  • Who publishes the “inerrant KJV”?

 

      1. Lots of people.  I recommend Local Church Bible Publishers.

 

  • Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words – would you say the KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

 

      1. All those were given by inspiration of God.  If there was a printer’s error, which happens even now, then they changed it.

 

  • Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an “Epistle Dedicatory” that praises this king as “most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty’s Royal Person . . .” – IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life?  [documentation – Antonia Fraser — “King James VI of Scotland, I of England” Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham — “The Making of a King” Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott — “James I” Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson — “King James VI & I” Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]

 

      1. King James was not a homosexual.  This is the claim of Anthony Weldon and was written 25 years after his death.  I claim that Anthony Weldon was a Sodomite.  Who cares what I claim and who cares what Weldon claims?  There is no proof, so I accept the clear record of history that King James was NOT a sodomite and was a loving husband to his wife.

 

  • Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was “led by God in translating” even though he was an alcoholic that “drank his fill daily” throughout the work?  [Gustavus S. Paine — “The Men Behind the KJV” Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

 

      1. Yes, sinlessness is not a requirement to doing something for God. (Rom 11:29)  Peter struggled his whole life to accept God’s dealings with Gentiles.  David was an adulterer and murderer.  Both were used of God to write scripture.

 

  • Is it possible that the rendition “gay clothing,” in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

 

      1. Yes.  But anyone who reads the King James knows that it isn’t “gay friendly”.  This is no reason to read an NIV instead.  Also, most people in 2015 know that the word “gay” used to mean “happy or nice or showy”.  

 

  • Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?

 

      1. No, it is clear in the context that not everyone in the camp died.  The ones who didn’t die woke up.

 

  • Was “Baptist” John’s last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?

 

      1. No.

 

  • Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? – “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.  Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.  Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.”  As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] – “We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you.  We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.  As a fair exchange – I speak as to my children – open wide your hearts also.”

 

      1. It makes some sense to me.  Which Bible is clearer is not the only factor to consider in the issue at hand. Job 6:6 in the RSV refers to the “slime of the purslane” but the KJV refers to the “white of an egg.”  The KJV is clearly easier to understand.  Just because the RSV is hard to understand doesn’t necessarily mean that the RSV is to be rejected.  There are many other reasons to reject the RSV.  

 

  • Does the singular “oath’s,” occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, “correct” every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural (“oaths”) by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

 

      1. Yes.  I don’t know what the big deal is.  There are errors in the TR and there are no errors in the KJV.

 

  • Did Jesus teach a way for men to be “worshiped” according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8?  [Remember – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

 

      1. Yes.  I Chron 29:20 shows that a man can get worship if he’s standing close to God when God is worshipped.  It’s a strange doctrine, but that’s what the text says.  Rev 3:9 figures into the equation also.  

 

  • Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV?  [Again – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

 

      1. Yes.  The pronoun for the Holy Spirit can be masculine or neuter.

 

  • Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday” crucifixion in the KJV?    [No “day” here in Greek]

 

      1. No.  They rested on the Sabbath of Passover.  Not regular Saturday.

 

  • Did Jesus command for a girl to be given “meat” to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, “of them that sit at meat with thee.” at Luke 14:10]

 

      1. Yes.  I don’t understand the reason for the question.  It clearly says meat.

 

  • Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a “Bible-corrector” for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered “saved in hope,” instead of the KJV’s “saved by hope”?  [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 – see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is “KJV-Onlyism?”, his & many others’ views in the article, “Quotes on Bible Translations.”]

 

      1. Yes.  Great men are not always wise.

 

  • Was J. Frank Norris a “Bible-corrector” for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be “born of water and the Spirit,” and for saying that “repent and turn” in Acts 26:20 should be “repent, even turn”?  [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an “Alexandrian Apostate” for stating, “The nature of language does not permit a ‘perfect’ translation – the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap.  A ‘perfect’ translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for “agapao” [translated “loved” in John. 3:16].”?

 

      1. Yes.  On that point they are Bible correctors.

 

  • Was R. A. Torrey “lying” when he said the following in 1907 – “No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant.  The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given”?  [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]

 

      1. Yes.  All men are liars.

 

  • Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing “in favor of canonizing our KJV,” thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek?  [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]

 

      1. It’s not a good way to describe it, but yes.

 

  • Did God supernaturally “move His Word from the original languages to English” in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?  [same page above]

 

    1. It’s a strange way to put it, but yes.

15 Proofs of the Deity of Jesus Christ

Copy this into your Bible and give it to the next JW or Muslim that you run into.

 

This doctrine is fundamental. – 1Tim 3:16 – It’s a GREAT mystery.

Essential to salvation. – Is 45:21, 43:11, 1 Tim 4:10

Proofs:

  1. Jesus called “the Lord” – Ps 110:1, Matt 22:41-46, Zech 12:10
  2. Virgin Birth would be God coming to live with men.
    1. Is 7:14, Matt 1:23, John 1:14
  3. Jesus/Messiah given divine names. – Is 9:6,7, (Ps 50:1), John 10:30, John 14:9
  4. Christ was to be from everlasting. – Micah 5:2
  5. Saviour was “eternally present”, God himself. – Ex 3:15, John 8:58
  6. He forgave sins. – Mark 2:5-12
    1. Only aggrieved party can forgive. – Ps 51:4
  7. Claimed equality with Father. – Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14
  8. Claimed omnipresence. – Matt 18:20
  9. Demonstrated Omniscience. – Mark 11:2-6
  10. Claimed Omnipotence. – Matt 28:18
  11. Christ had creative power. – John 1:3, Col 1:15,16, Heb 1:2,3
  12. Had power over elements. – Luke 8:24
  13. Christ given worship. – John 9:38, Matt 14:33, Luke 24:52
    1. Commanded to worship God only Matt 4:10
  14. Jesus Christ accepted deity. – John 20:28, Acts 20:28
  15. Rose from dead. – Rom 1:4

“God Loves Everyone”

This weekend, at a “funnymentalist” church in FL, we heard time after time the statement, “God loves everyone”.  Their tracts (which are sadly typical) all tell the sinner to recognize that God loves them.

Later, the song leader got up and said that he was thankful that “God loved him.”  I hope that you are not so brainwashed that you fail to see the problem here.  “God loves everyone” but I am so happy that he loves me?  Well, he supposedly loves everyone, so where’s the pressure coming from?

The clear way to answer this is to go to the Bible verses that say that God doesn’t love everyone.  We know that he “loved” everyone at Calvary by dying for them, but that verb tense matters.  All the cross references are in the past tense.  Proving that God does not love the world in the present tense. Today, God only loves men that come through Calvary to him.  Apart from that, he does not love them.  See John 3:36, Ps 5:5, Prov 6:16-19.

But to go a different direction, let me demonstrate the fallacy of thinking it’s good to make statements like “God loves everyone.”

Try to follow the logic:

To say that God loves everyone is the same as saying that God hates everyone.  Always remember the foundational truth that “You have to hate weeds in order to love flowers.”  If you say that you love weeds and flowers, you mean nothing.  Love involves some jealousy (SofS 8:6).  You cannot love flowers and weeds.  That is hate, because weeds kill flowers.

So let me end this article with some statements that are as absurd as “God loves everyone.”

 

Everyone is tall.

Everyone is smart.

Everyone is good looking.

 

I am trying to illustrate the law of opposites.  You cannot have love without hate.  You cannot have tall without short.  You cannot have fat without skinny.  You cannot have smart without dumb.  These general truths are never contradicted in the Bible and in fact, they are clearly upheld.  I am so thankful that God loves me (I John 4:10).  That means something because of who God is: he is an almighty, holy Creator whose name is Jehovah, who is jealous (Ex 20:5, 34:14).  He loves me, but he doesn’t love everyone.

As usual, more could be said.  For more info, see God is Love by Doctor Ruckman.

Two (main) Raptures: a Pre-Trib and a Post-Trib Rapture.

 

One of the biggest pushes in the Independent Baptist movement has been to get rid of the Pre-Trib Rapture.  Men like Kent Hovind and Steven L. Anderson make mincemeat of the idea that the Church avoids the Tribulation.  They are successful because most Independent Baptist pastors and teachers put all the verses in the Bible on the Rapture and say that there is only one.  Again, they are not “rightly dividing.”  This allows Hovind and Anderson to correct their errors and put the church through the Tribulation.  All this because the average Independent Baptist will not allow that there may be two Raptures, one before the Tribulation and another after the Tribulation.

First, let me say this: the church does not go through the Tribulation.  This is the time of Jacob’s sorrows and what remains of Daniel’s 70th Week.  According to the Scriptures, the church has nothing to do with those times.  These times are for Israel.  Therefore, the church must be removed prior to the start of those times.  Beyond that, we have the testimony of the Pauline Epistles that the church will be removed from the time when God puts his wrath on the world right before the second coming of Jesus Christ.  As God says, he has not appointed us to wrath.  The Tribulation is called wrath throughout the book of Revelation.  That time is a time for the nation connected to Jacob and Daniel, NOT Christians.  Since the average Independent Baptist fails to make the distinction, they fall into the trap of the Post-Trib Rapture theorists and force themselves to put the church into the Tribulation.  

One commonly repeated error, that affects most Independent Baptists, is to say that the Pre-Trib Rapture is a signless event.  I am not saying that I know the day that the Rapture will happen.  I do not.  But I am saying that things will start to happen before the Rapture and they MUST happen before there can be a Rapture.  Many will take the verse that says, “no man knoweth the day or the hour” and take that to mean that you CANNOT know when the Rapture will happen.  The only problem is that the verse does not say that.  “Knoweth” is a present tense verb.  The point that Christ is making is that, at the time he is talking, no one knows.  Will you not admit that, right now, Christ knows when the Rapture will happen?  If he does, then the verse was only talking about at that time right then.  Obviously, someone CAN know.  Then we must go to other verses that show that some events must happen before the Rapture.  First, let me say that God works off of a 7,000 year calendar.  There are 4,000 years before Christ and there are 1,000 years after the 2nd coming.  There are only 2,000 years left.  That is the length of time between the 1st and 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Questions remain.  Does this start at his birthday or his crucifixion?  Does it end at the Pre-Trib or the Post-Trib Rapture?  These are not clear, but they most likely can be found out.  Enoch knew he would be Raptured, and so did Elijah.  This seems to be the Biblical pattern (Amos 3:7).  We see that the 2,000 years must occur before the Rapture.  Also, 2 Thess 2:3 shows that 2 incidents must occur before the “day of Christ” The “day of Christ” is a reference to the Rapture and also to the Judgment Seat of Christ.  Before this “day” can occur, “there (must) come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”  First, apostasy must come.  It has come.  The next requirement is that the man of sin be revealed.  This is the Antichrist, he has not been revealed.  It will happen before the Rapture.  But we are still talking about the Pre-Trib Rapture.  All this happens before the “Time of Jacob’s Sorrows.”  There is a second “revealing” in 2 Thess 2 and the second revealing is to the Jews and they will realize that their “Savior” is actually the Devil incarnate and will run to the wilderness.  The first “revealing” is to the church.  The type is how John knew who would betray Christ in John 13.  Later the other disciples found out.  All this evidence goes to show that the Pre-Trib Rapture of the church is not a signless event.  It seems from the Scriptures that God will tell the church the timing of the Rapture beforehand.

There are some verses in Matthew 24 that CANNOT be put on the Pre-Trib Rapture.  They must be put at the end of the Tribulation or else the church does go through the Tribulation.  Verse 13 is a verse that does not fit the church-age doctrine of eternal security.  Therefore, it must go in the Tribulation.  In verse 14, there is a different gospel than the “Gospel of the grace of God.”  Verse 15 has a rebuilt Temple.  Verse 16 addresses those that be in Judea.  If this was “Christians,” then the number would be very small and the main issue would be: why address only Christians in Judea and not the others?  Would they not be affected by the Antichrist?  Verse 20 deals with the Sabbath.  That has nothing to do with the church (Col 2:16).  Why bring that up if this is about Christians?  Verse 27 deals with the 2nd coming and not the Rapture.  Why did Christ skip the Rapture?  Obviously, he did not.  This evidence should suffice.  There is another Rapture at the end of the Tribulation.  

Pastoral Authority vs. the Authority of the Bible

 

The job of the pastor is to preach and pray.  There are other minor jobs that God gives the pastor, but nowhere in the Bible does God tell the pastor to dictate every little thing in a man’s life.  Christians should grow up enough to find out what the will of God is for themselves.  All Christians are priests right?  Today, many Independent Baptist preachers act like only they know what the will of God is and their members do not.  They treat their members like they are babies.  Unsurprisingly, that produces members who are babies.  A Bible Believer should believe that the Bible is the Final Authority.  Many Independent Baptists act (or even believe) that their pastor is the Final Authority.  1 Peter 5:1-3 and Mark 10:42-43 clearly show that a pastor is not to say things like, “Because I said so.” They should do things because God wants them to and because they are the right things to do.

Independent Baptist pastors are famous (and here the perception is true) for making people do things and strong arming them into submission.  Examples abound and they are not limited to the issue of skirts, haircuts, who to marry, what job to get, and what car or house to buy.  The pastor has no business telling his members what God wants them to do on issues not clearly delineated in the Bible.  Oftentimes, he has less than 10% of the information that the member has and has spent way less time praying about the subject.  I have seen a pastor send a man to the mission field and I have heard the statement, “When I tell you to go talk to someone, just do it and don’t think about it.”  

Obviously, the great issue that arises is this: what happens to a congregation when the pastor falls from the faith?  If the congregation has been taught to blindly follow the pastor, then of course the congregation will blindly follow the pastor into his apostasy.  This is not a just a hypothetical situation.  This has happened and it will continue to happen, sadly.  But the problem is started by preaching that points men to the pastor and not to the Bible and the God of the Bible.  But this, by definition, cannot be fixed because a listener is supposed to “despise not prophesyings.”  Men are taught that everything said from the pulpit is from God.  That is not Biblical.  “Despise not prophesyings” is balanced out by “prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.”  If the preaching does not match the Bible then dump it.  No matter who is preaching.  A good pastor should tell his congregation to do this.  But often they do not. Because they are scared they will say the wrong thing and get called out.  Everyone is scared of being called out.  Most just say, “Despise not prophesyings” in order to not have to deal with the issues.  No one is infallible.  Only Popes are stupid enough to claim it.  Sadly, many Independent Baptist pastors claim something similar.  They will never admit it, but they act like they are as infallible as the Pope himself.

Pastors will admit that they have made mistakes in the past, but then does it not follow that they will make mistakes in the future?  Without any doubt they will.  So why would a Christian be expected to turn their brains off and blindly do everything he is told?  Biblically he is not.  Sure, God has given certain men a plan for the ministry.  But that does not mean that he will not make mistakes, even when issues of the ministry come up.  No man knows all the ins and outs of a situation, even their own.  Anyone should be open to criticism.  They are not speaking for God if the reason is, “Because I say so.”  Always go by the Bible.  That is good advice for Independent Baptist pastors and anyone who has ever lived or will live.

Trump is controlled by the Pope

Look at this statement from a Catholic dinner event for the presidential candidates…

 

“We can also agree on the need to stand up to anti-Catholic bias.”

 

Trump said that.

 

One of the mysteries of the New Testament, that we are to be good stewards of, is the mystery of MYSTERY BABYLON.  Folks, you need to understand this, the Bible teaches anti-Catholic bias.  Trump wants to unite us against the Bible, by his own admission.

 

They say you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.  I say you can’t be a Bible Believer and cast your lot in with Donald Trump.

I am Against Trying to Save ‘Merica

 

The average Independent Baptist in ‘Merica spends a lot of time on politics, preacher or not.  It is commendable that they are 99% of the time right wing and conservative.  But this is not an issue that the NT commands us to spend a lot of time on.  Paul is our example (as he follows Christ).  Paul and Christ never involved themselves in the political arena.  Neither did anyone else of note in the NT.  We are in a battle, but that battle is never described as a political battle in the NT. These are the FACTS, no matter what any ‘Merican, tea-party, moral majority moron in an Independent Baptist pulpit tells us.  Our rights according to the NT are to die and be judged (Heb 9:27).  Period.  Fight for those rights if you insist.  The other rights that we have as ‘Mericans are nice, but the NT never shows any Christian fighting for their “Constitutional” rights.  There is nothing wrong with USING those rights, as Paul does, and being thankful for them, but it is a waste of time to FIGHT for those rights.  Clearly, we are to obey Romans 13, but this will be true even after our so-called rights are taken away.  Here is a newsflash: They have been taken away.  My pastor has a good question that sums up the issue: Does God want you to save ‘Merica or save souls?

First, let me say that you need to realize that America is a drop in the bucket according to God.  God stresses that the nations are not important to him.  God loves Israel and he loves his Son.  The only reason you or I have any importance is because we are connected to his beloved Son Jesus Christ.  If you take the whole 350 million or so people that live in ‘Merica and the whole governmental system, they only make up a drop of water.  They are also called less than nothing.  When a man comes to Christ he is important but the country he comes from is worthless to God.  Why spend time on something that God says is less than nothing?  A Bible Believer should care about what God cares about and not care about what God does not care about.  That should be simple.  But the majority of Independent Baptists care a lot about politics in ‘Merica.  They prove it by the amount of time they spend following primaries and demonstrating with Catholics and agnostics in the “tea party.”  No godly man in the NT spent any time with any “tea party” demonstrating.  They spent their time PREACHING THE BIBLE.

Second, Independent Baptists need to realize that ‘Merica is to be taken over by the Antichrist.  Many would argue that the system is already in place for the Antichrist and that ‘Merica is at the forefront of the patsy governments that will quickly succumb to the Antichrist.  They would be correct. ‘Merica falling into the grasp of the Antichrist and attacking Jerusalem is something that God wants (Zeph. 3:9).  To fight against that is to fight against God himself.  This is a serious matter.  Yet the majority of Independent Baptists spend their time pushing moral majorities, tea parties, and Capitol Connections.  Something no one in the Book of Acts (how to ACT as a Christian) would be found dead doing.  The proof that ‘Merica is at the forefront of the Antichrist’s movement is seen in how ‘Merica pushes the homosexual agenda.  God destroys countries that live like ‘Merica.  See Sodom in Genesis 19.  2 Peter 2 says that story is an example for ‘Merica.  But not only does ‘Merica live like Sodom, it is the world’s leader in trying to encourage that “lifestyle” throughout the world.  Just ask Russia.  When Obama went to Kenya, there were riots in the streets because people know what he and his country’s agenda are.  Those men in Africa know what happens to societies like that.  They look like spiritual giants compared to ‘Mericans.  It is hard to understand how Independent Baptists can stand in their pulpits and say, “’Merica is worth fighting for.”  Fighting for the queer agenda?  Folks: this country is already given up according to Romans 1.

People who push to spend time fighting to “Save ‘Merica,” need to read up on their ‘Merican history.  They intend to go back to the time of the “Founding Fathers.”  They even say it; in spite of Matt 23.  But these uninformed dupes need to realize who the founders were.  They were Bible-rejecting deists and Masons who hated the NT, especially Romans 13.  If they had any respect for Romans 13 they would never have taken up arms against the British government.  This is uncomfortable, but it is true.  Yes, God has used America to send out missionaries and be a blessing to the Jews, but the men who made this country the way it is hated the Bible and did not give a rip what it said about government.  Yet, Independent Baptists want to go back to them?  I also wonder: Do these “Baptists” not know what the founders did to Baptists?  The black hats of New England whipped Baptists for 150 years and the gentlemen of Virginia threw Baptists in jail and exiled them.  But “Baptists” want to go back to those men?  This is foolishness to say the least.

People need to accept the FACT that the Constitution is no longer in effect.  I am not going to go into great depths in this argument or I would be going against my own belief.  I believe that a Biblical Christian should have nothing to do with “finding out the original intent of the authors of the Constitution.”  But it needs to be said that our government only obeys the Constitution only when it suits their purposes.  When the Constitution goes against their needs or desires, then it is not worth the paper it is written on.  Independent Baptists should ignore what the media says (especially Fox [like Herod] News) and come to grips with reality.  Voting is controlled by the government.  The elections are determined beforehand (at least at the national level).  Obama is not a US citizen. Constitutionally, he is required to be.  September 11th was perpetrated by the government of “Merica.  See “Loose Change.”  ‘Merica has no business in any war outside of its own borders.  Yet it has a military presence all over the world.  Why?  Because it is a tool of the Antichrist.  All their reasons for being in those countries have been shown to be made up out of thin air.  But that is beside the point.  Needless to say, the Constitution has long been nothing more than ink and paper and has been ignored by this government just as the Bible has been.

As an experiment, I would like to take a transcribed sermon of a “rah-rah” ‘Merica guy and scratch out ‘Merica and write in Iran.  My guess is that it would make no sense, even to the preacher.  An Independent Baptist should have the sense to realize that the Bible is not a ‘Merican book.  Good preaching in ‘Merica should be, with minor changes, good preaching in Iran and China.  But would a good Independent Baptist pastor REALLY preach, “We need to pray and fast for our government” in Iran?  They most certainly would not.  They would not spend an ounce of energy or a minute of time praying for the Mullahs in Tehran.  The counter argument would be that Iran is against Christ.  Then the fact that ‘Merica is against Christ is even more important.  These facts have been established in the preceding paragraphs.  But the average Independent Baptist does not look at facts.  They are perfectly content to let Fox (like Herod) News do their thinking for them.  Again, they think ‘Merica is a special country.  God says it is just a drop in the bucket, like Iran and China and everyone else except Israel.  

Paul had freedoms in the Roman Empire.  We have already pointed this out.  The Roman Empire, at this point in history, was huge help to the Gospel.  This becomes more clear when contrasted with the Parthian Empire which persecuted Christianity and, for whatever reason, the gospel never really took hold there.  For some reason the Gospel flourished under the conditions of the rule of the Caesars and not the Shahs.  But Paul never wanted to try and save Rome.  

It has been argued that ‘Merica is an exception to the rules on nations and that it should be fought for because it is the “greatest country in the world.”  What standard is being used?  If the standard is the Bible, then it is most certainly not true.  Israel is the greatest country.  Many would say, “But Israel is backslidden.”  But God never makes the statement that Israel is only the greatest when it is not backslidden.  In fact quite the opposite (Deut 9:4-6).  Then a man would say that ‘Merica is the greatest country because it is the most free.  This is easily proven to be false.  Look it up on Google.  ‘Merica is anywhere from 6th to 20th based on what standard of “freedom” is used.  Also, I would ask was Israel free under Moses?  Or David?  Clearly it was not, Israel was a Middle Eastern dictatorship, so why would any Bible Believer say that the standard to judge “World’s Greatest Country” was “freedom?”  You have to throw out the Bible to think that “Saving ‘Merica” is something worth caring about.  

 

This topic is of crucial importance for 2 reasons.  First, trying to save ‘Merica goes against the direct will of God (Zeph 3:9).  Second, men that spend their time in this stupid “battle” are getting ENTANGLED and the Bible says that he should not do so or he will not please God (2 Tim 2:4).  The reason so many Independent Baptists want to “Save ‘Merica,” is because they are comfortable living their lives the way they are now.  It is understandable, but it is not biblical.  Christians: this world is NOT our home.  We are strangers and pilgrims here.  Or should I say, we are SUPPOSED to be strangers and pilgrims here.  Our flesh knows what awaits when ‘Merica is destroyed.  The remedy is not to fight to “Save ‘Merica,” it is to fight the good fight of faith.  It is the faith of our Baptist forebearers who went to Massachusetts when it was illegal to be a Baptist there.  They went to Virginia and Maryland and preached the whole counsel of God and they paid the price.  Folks: they have gotten their rewards.  Our time might be soon.  Prepare! Not by going to Capitol Connections, but by preaching when and where you can, now.  Soon our time will come to count the cost.  Lord willing, it will be worth it enough for you to PREACH.

I Believe the Gap Fact

This statement makes me seem like a great compromiser to the modern Independent Baptist who gets his information from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.  We should not be so shallow.  We shall use our brains and check the Scriptures.  Let me unequivocally state the fact that I do not believe the theory of Evolution.  I read the standard creationist literature in order to observe the falsehood of the garbage put out by the God-hating evolutionists.  But when it comes to checking the scriptures, the average creationist (and the Independent Baptists who reads only their material) has no more insight into the scriptures than the average college educated atheist.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I used to believe that the so called “Gap Theory” was a compromise with evolution.  But I was stuck in my school room in Pensacola and I had to listen to the arguments of the “Gappers” instead of blindly ignoring their ideas.  I realized that the Gap Fact answered questions that I had never even thought about before.  Like: “When did Lucifer fall?” Or, “Where did the darkness come from?”  I had not even thought of these questions, much less found an answer to them.  I was too busy accusing the “Gappers” of being compromisers.  Now, I accuse the people who do not believe in the Gap of believing the “Skip Theory.”  I have observed that modern creationists SKIP the first verse of the Bible and start at verse 2.  Any theory involving “skipping” a verse and not applying it is a heretical theory.  Evidence that modern creationists SKIP the first verse will be provided shortly and so will many facts that Lucifer, the anointed Cherub that covereth, fell before Genesis 1:2.

I have already provided irrefutable evidence that the KJB is superior to any Hebrew or Greek manuscript.  Another example will be used to help demonstrate the Gap Fact.  Look at the first verse of Genesis 1.  See the word, “heaven”?  That word is plural, or at least dual, in number in the Hebrew.  The KJB translators translated the word in the singular.  This goes against the NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV, YLT, and a few hundred more English translations I am sure.  This ground has already been covered, but again I ask the question, “How can a man use both the Hebrew and the KJB when they contradict?”  The reason this is important is that God is showing that, originally, he only created ONE heaven.  Well, now we have 3 heavens (plural).  How did we end up with 3 heavens?  The Gap Fact explains this.  The Skip Theory pretends this is not an issue and runs to the “original Hebrew.”  God made the 1st and 2nd heaven after he drowned the universe out after Lucifer fell.  This happened during the Gap.  That is where the “water” came from and also where the “darkness” came from.  This confounds the modern creationists but is clearly explained by the Gap Fact.  Mainly, these issues are skipped by the modern creationists.

These lists come from a study of the Gap by a man named Greg Kedrovsky.  If you want a further explanation, listen to his multipart series on the Gap.  This is evidence that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Let’s start with “Four Observations” on Genesis 1.

  1. Evolution is not an option. God “created” the heaven and the earth, it did not just happen and it did not just evolve.
  2. “In” the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Therefore, since Lucifer (Satan) fell “from” the beginning, we must place his rebellion sometime after the original creation of Genesis 1.1, not before (there was nothing before, only God alone).
  3. In the beginning, God “created”; He did not “make.” There is a distinct difference between those two words and we must take that into account.
  4. How does God create things? He makes them beautiful, ordered, perfect, full of light, and awe-inspiring even for angels who are in His presence daily.

 

And here are 10 reasons that there MUST be a Gap between the first two verses of the Bible. The subpoints are my points and the main points are from Greg Kedrovsky.  

  1. The Polysyndeton of Genesis 1: God repeats the word “and” to draw our attention to important words and phrases.
    1. If there wasn’t something important there, the grammar of the verse would be wrong.
  2. The Words of Genesis 1.1-2: Words like “created” in verse 1 don’t go well with words like “without form and void” in verse two. Something happened!
  3. The Darkness of Genesis 1.2: If God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all, then where did the darkness come from in Genesis 1.2?
  4. The Waters of Genesis 1.2: Why is the entire creation under water in Genesis 1.2? Where did the water come from and why?
  5. The Division of Genesis 1.2: There was no division in the original creation (Gen 1.1). Division always signifies sin–the wages of sin is death, and death in the Bible is a separation (from life). Why do we see division and separation in God’s creation in Genesis 1.2 if there was no sin? Clearly there was sin!
    1. This is the only place to put Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.  Nowhere else makes sense.
  6. The Parallelism of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2: God shows us the world that then was (Gen 1.1) and its ruin (Gen 1.2), and then the world that now is (Gen 1.3-2.25) and its ruin (Gen 3.1-6).
  7. The New Testament and the Testimony of the Christian: In 2 Corinthians 4:6, Paul draws a parallel between Genesis 1 and our salvation testimony. If there was no original sin in the Gap, then there was no original sin in Adam. The Bible just doesn’t work without a Gap.
  8. Sin in the Universe: Adam’s sin affected his race and the earth. Whose sin affected the rest of creation? It has to be Lucifer’s sin of rebellion during the Gap.
  9. The Existence of the Devil: There is no other logical place for the ministry and fall of Lucifer other than the Gap between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. His was the first sin and would have caused catastrophic destruction in the whole of creation, exactly like we see in Genesis 1.2.
  10. God told Adam to “replenish” the earth: He gave Noah the same commission because Noah was to re-populate the earth after the flood. Adam, too, then was to re-populate the earth. There were creatures here before us and they filled the earth. God told Adam to fill it up again with his descendants.
    1. “Replenish” can mean fill but God uses it to mean “fill again” in Genesis 9:1.  

All of the arguments by men like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind have been answered in the book, Gap Fact, by Perry Demopolous and in the studies by Greg Kedrovsky.  This short explanation should suffice.

I Believe That God Does NOT Love Everyone Apart From Calvary

 

John 3:16 is a great verse.  Only an idiot would say that it is a bad verse.  But only a man equally idiotic would say that the Devil has never tried to pervert it.  The main way that the Independent Baptists pervert this verse is to change the tense and put it, at this moment, on a lost person.  This is heresy of the first degree.  Let me say this in the clearest terms possible: God does not love a lost man.  According to the Bible, God showed (past tense) his love for lost sinners by sending Jesus Christ to die on the cross in their place.  Never in the NT does God say he loves (present tense) the sinner.  The obvious proof of this is that out of 7,957 verses in the King James NT, when a man tries to prove that God loves (present tense) the sinner, 9 times out of 10, he will quote John 3:16.  And the verse is written in the past tense.  If there was another verse that was better, they would use it.  They do not.

One question that arises is, “Is there a verse that shows God does not love the sinner?”  I am glad that you asked.  There is a verse that proves this in the same chapter: John 3.  Look at verse 36.  Notice that “abideth” is present tense as verbs that end in “-eth” are third person, singular, PRESENT tense, according to the dictionary.  According to John 3:36, the wrath of God abideth on a man without Christ.  This is a direct contrast to the heresy that “the love of God abideth on him.”  Other places in the Bible show that God does not love the sinner are Psalm 5:5, 11:5, and Proverbs 6:16-19 (some examples are sins and some are people that do those sins).  In the NT, Jesus Christ tells people that they are children of the Devil (John 8:47) and in the Pauline Epistles, lost men are children of wrath and disobedience who are without hope and without God.  There is no indication that he loves sinners (present tense) until that moment when they run to the cross of Calvary and get saved.  At that second, Romans 8 comes into effect and then God loves saved sinners so much that nothing can separate them from the love of God.  

This is a great heresy because it destroys the whole reason that a sinner needs to get saved.  Imagine a lost man under conviction.  By definition, he is worried about the consequences for his sin.  He is starting to grasp that God is completely holy, very much unlike himself.  And then on his way home from work, he sees the stupid church sign at his local Independent Baptist church.  Having long ago abandoned putting up Scripture only, it says, “Smile, God Loves You.”  At that moment he is given, by the Devil himself, a reason to ignore his conscience and put away his conviction.  He has just been told that he was fine.  This is a trick of the Devil.  He is not fine and he is headed for hell.  His reason for running to Calvary has been removed because “God loves him.”  Or so he was told.

This heresy is rampant.  One major Independent Baptist ministry that prints tracts has 90% of its tracts starting with “Realize God loves you” and quotes John 3:16.  Biblically, this is the first thing that a lost man should realize is NOT true.  That is why he is going to hell and that is why he needs to get saved.  Also, if God loves everyone, then why would I preach the Gospel to them?  He already loves them, supposedly.  This lie also diminishes the love that the God of the Bible has towards his Son Jesus Christ and Christians.  The “law of opposites” comes into effect here which is to say that if God loves everyone he therefore does NOT love anyone.  You have to have “up” to have “down.”  The old saying goes, “you can’t love flowers without hating weeds.”  Besides to faulty logic, the effects of this heresy are cheap salvations (that is the same as saying “no or fake salvations”)and a lack of reasons to preach to lost men.  And more than that, it is a rejection of the clear teachings of the Bible.