West Coast Baptist College: Typical Deception

https://paulchappell.com/2018/02/05/22-things-you-should-know-about-west-coast-baptist-college/

Let me use Pauly Chappell as a perfect example of someone who acts like he takes a strong stand on the King James Bible, but actually he rejects the King James.

“We are committed to the King James Version of the Bible. We believe that God not only inspired every word of Scripture, but that He has preserved it through the ages (Psalm 12:6–7). We believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people.”

Let us break down these comments.

-We are committed to the King James Version of the Bible.  

Look at this deceptive wording.  Notice the word “committed”.  That can mean anything and is a key word to identify that someone is trying to deceive you.  If you WANT to believe that fundies like WCBC are Bible Believers, this will be sufficient for you.  But remember, “committed to” is not the same as “believe”.

-We believe that God not only inspired every word of Scripture, but that He has preserved it through the ages (Psalm 12:6–7).

Again, that wording allows them “plausible deniability” so use a modern term.  It allows them to seem strong on the Bible issue, meanwhile they promote the typical Alexandrian attitude towards the Bible.  They know that what they believe is that the Textus Receptus is inspired (no comment on the OT or which version of the TR they believe).  Read the book on the Bible version issue by Oulette that is endorsed by Chappell.  They reject the inspiration of the King James.

-We believe the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people.

What is not said? There is nothing about final authority.  What about Bilingual people?  What about where the King James Bible and a Spanish or German Bible contradict?  These are the questions that matter and they are not addressed by WCBC.

This is sadly typical of what I call “lowest common denominator” Christianity.  Chappell makes a million dollars a year taking church building strategies from Rick Warren and repackaging them under the guise of Independent Baptist and King James Only.  They are NOT Bible Believers.  Anyone paying attention to their words should be able to figure that out.

Advertisements

Quadruple Inspiration

A lot of dumb Fundamentalists get all worked up in a tizzy over what they have decided to call “Double Inspiration”.  Many fundamentalist preachers like to talk about how they believe the King James Bible, but they claim to not believe that it is “inspired” because that would be “Double Inspiration.”  What a true Bible Believer believes is QUADRUPLE inspiration.  I want to make this clear in this blog post today.

If you want to find out the difference between a Bible Believer and a Fundamentalist, ask them if the King James Bible is inspired.  All fundamentalists will back down.  A Bible Believer believes that the King James Bible fulfills II Tim 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”  He believes that the King James is “given by inspiration”.  Is the King James Bible Scripture?  If yes, then it’s given by inspiration.  If no, then you are not a Bible Believer.  You are just another Fundy.  Case Closed.

The modern Fundy believes the equation look like this:

ORIGINAL WRITINGS = Inspired

KING JAMES BIBLE = Not Inspired

They would argue something along the lines of: No translation can be inspired.  But this will not hold up.  The original manuscripts are filled with inspired translation.  This would include Moses and Pharaoh’s conversations (who would argue that Pharaoh spoke the language of the slaves?) and New Testament Greek quotations of the Old Testament Hebrew.

Modern Funnymentalists believe that only a heretic would believe in Double Inspiration.  They believe the equation would be this:

ORIGINAL WRITINGS =  Single Inspired

KING JAMES BIBLE = Double Inspired

But a good way to shock the Bible rejecting Fundy would be to give the equation as it stands in the Bible.  The equation, with scripture, could be set up like this:

SPOKEN ORIGINAL: Jeremiah 36:4, what came out of Jeremiah’s mouth is the “words of the Lord” see I Peter 1:21

ORIGINAL WRITINGS: Jeremiah 36:4  Baruch wrote down the “words of the Lord”.  These writings are destroyed or lost in Jeremiah 36:23.

SECOND ORIGINAL WRITINGS: Jeremiah 36:23 There is another original.  Notice how these second originals are better than the first.  This fits Psalm 12:6,7.

KING JAMES BIBLE:  A fourth inspiration.

One could  possible fine one or two more inspiration in Jeremiah 51, but four is shocking enough if you are used to thinking that two is too much…

I have not gone into all the ins and outs of the argument here, but I wanted to lay out an example of Quadruple Inspiration.  Needless to say, that if a man rejects so called “double inspiration” then he rejects Christ when he says in Matt 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”  He believes that the first writings passed away.  Don’t be so foolish to reject “double inspiration” without looking up what the Bible says on the subject.

Why the King James Bible is Better than the Originals

Why the King James Bible is better than the originals

Jer 36 – Originals destroyed, but then God made copy that was better (vs. 32).

  1. It exists. (Ecc 9:4)
    1. Multiple copies. Only one original.
  2. All books together.
    1. No complete Greek Bible until after 200 AD. No Hebrew until 1599 AD.
  3. Universal Language.
    1. No one speak Koine Greek, so you’re at the mercy of lexicons.
  4. Spaces between words, punctuation, lower case.
    1. Originals written in scriptio continua. Ex: oppurtinityisnowhere.
  5. Chapters, Verse, Paragraphs.
    1. Chapters added in 1205 by Stephen Langton
    2. Verses added in OT by Rabbi Nathan Kalonymus in 1440.
    3. Verses added in NT by Robert Estienne (Stephanus) in 1551.
  6. Millions saved reading King James.
  7. Philadelphia church period given credit for having “kept my word” (Rev 3:8)
    1. This period typically dated from 1500-1900.
  8. Premillennial Order.
    1. Ex: 2 Chron (Jew told to go back to land-1917), Ezra (Jews actually return-1940s), Nehemiah (Jew rebuild in the land- 1950 to present), Esther (Gentile bride dumped for Jewish bride- happens at Rapture), Job (type of Tribulation), Psalm (chapter 2- the King comes).

Why God picked English

There must be a final authority. Deut 25:13-16

  • Must be Protestant
    • Spain and France had their chance.
  • Worldwide
    • 1.2 Billion English speakers.
    • 2 Billion by 2030.
    • 50% of European Union, 85% of Israel.
  • Must be connected to a King. (Ecc 8:4)
    • Antichrist has mouth like lion.  Lion connected to England. (Rev 13:2)
  • England connected to absolutes.
    • Time- Greenwich Mean Time.
    • Location – Longitude measured from Prime meridian in Greenwich, UK.
  • Miscellaneous language characteristics.
    • No throaty sounds. Better for street preaching.
    • Etc, etc, etc…

A Critique of George Lujack’s Critique of the King James Only Position

I truly enjoy critiquing other people’s critiques.  I probably enjoy it a little too much.  Gott hilf mir.

Today we will look at a paper by George Lujack.  This man is a New Yorker, who follows Messianic Judaism although he does not go so far as to reject the Apostle Paul.  Given enough time, either he or most of his followers will get there as that is the logical terminus of Hebrew Roots doctrine.

The guy seems like a prolific author and some of his articles are somewhat decent.  However, on many topics he should just keep quite.  Because when he tries to comment, he makes himself look dumb.

For an example of this, we shall look at his article about the King James issue.  It can be found here:

http://www.scripturetruthministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/IS-THE-KING-JAMES-BIBLE-THE-PURE-PERFECT-PRESERVED-WORD-OF-GOD-FOR-THE-ENGLISH-SPEAKING-PEOPLE-2.pdf

We shall make our comments in BOLD.

IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE THE PURE – PERFECT – PRESERVED WORD OF GOD FOR THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE?
By George Lujack
Some Christians believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the King James Bible as the pure -perfect – preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. ME, I DO. This article will discuss the origins of the King James Bible Only doctrine, present irrefutable proofs that the King James Bible is not perfectly translated into English, and will declare the King James Bible Only doctrine to be false.

ORIGIN OF THE ‘KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE ONLY’ DOCTRINE
Many persons since the early 1600’s have proclaimed that the English people must read the King James Version Bible ONLY, being that it is the inspired, perfect, preserved, pure word of God for the English-speaking people, and all other English translations are inaccurate and / or inferior. This doctrinal belief originated from King James himself.  NICE THAT YOU DIDN’T TRY THE USUAL ROUTE WHERE CRITICS CLAIM THAT DOCTOR RUCKMAN OR 7TH DAY ADVENTISTS INVENTED IT.  I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM HERE.  Bishops of the Church of England, under orders of King James, exercising ‘ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction’ wrote many articles and promoted the distribution and placement of the Authorized Version of the King James Bible in the English churches and elsewhere. It was King James, through the Church of England, who first introduced the concept that the King James Bible translators were inspired by God and that only the Authorized Version King James Bible was inerrant and infallible [1]. I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE: CAN THEY PROVE IT THEN?

KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS WERE COMMISSIONED BY KING JAMES, THEY
WERE NOT INSPIRED TRANSLATORS OF GOD
2 TIMOTHY 3:16: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF HE GAVE THE WHOLE CONTEXT HERE…
The Scriptures, given to us in their original Hebrew and Greek languages, are the inspired word of God. CHAPTER AND VERSE?  I THINK THEY ARE INSPIRED, THE QUESTION IS: WAS ANYTHING ELSE GIVEN BY INSPIRATION? The King James Bible is not the original written Scriptures TRUE and was not given to us by the inspiration of God, NOT PROVEN but is a translation of His given inspired word to the English language TRANSLATIONS CAN BE INSPIRED.  LOOK AT ALL THE OT QUOTES IN THE NT. God directly inspired the prophets and apostles to write the Scriptures. King James commissioned translators to translate the Scriptures into English. OK, SO THEY DIDN’T KNOW THEY WERE INSPIRED, NEITHER DID PAUL I COR 7:12
THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS WRITTEN IN OLD ARCHAIC ENGLISH
There are many Christian ministers who believe that archaic old English is a more godly language than modern English. THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION.  THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT.  They like to appear more holy when preaching in the pulpits in old English, ASSUMPTION saying King James phrases such as, “Thus saith the Lord,” instead of “Thus says the Lord,” or “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name,” instead of “Our Father who is in heaven, Holy is Your name.” OR MAYBE THEY THINK IT IS MORE ACCURATE.  IT’S BETTER THAN PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE HOLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PARSING A GREEK NOUN…Old English is not a holy language, nor is it any holier than modern English. I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE THERE ALTHOUGH WE COULD NEVER PROVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  MODERN ENGLISH IS DEGRADED AND FEW WOULD ARGUE THAT POINT… To believe that old English is the language of God, NOT SURE ANYONE CLAIMS THAT JUST LIKE FEW WOULD CLAIM THAT GREEK IS THE LANGUAGE OF GOD, ALTHOUGH HE DID USE GREEK NONETHELESS  one is basically worshiping the old English language as being of God. THAT IS FAULTY LOGIC, BRO.  NO ONE WORSHIPS A LANGUAGE.  STRAWMAN. God first communicated to Adam in the Garden of Eden, in the language He gave Adam at that time, then later on to Moses in Hebraic. WHAT ABOUT ARAMAIC AND GREEK?  LEFT OUT SOME INFO DIDN’T YOU? The Scriptures do not record God ever communicating with man in any form of English. THIS PROVES NOTHING.  King James Bible Only ministers communicate to their congregations in the confusing old English language in a similar manner that Catholic priests do when conducting their Catholic mass while speaking in Latin. THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE.  FIRST OFF, KING JAMES ENGLISH IS NOT OLD ENGLISH, TO CLAIM OTHERWISE IS TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK STUPID.  LOOK UP AN EXAMPLE OF OE ON THE INTERNET AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NOT ONLY IS IT HARDER TO UNDERSTAND, IT IS ANOTHER LANGUAGE ALTOGETHER.  KING JAMES ENGLISH IS OLD FASHIONED IN AMERICA, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ANOTHER LANGUAGE LIKE LATIN.  POOR LUJACK IS WAY OFF BASE HERE.  The Catholic congregations are confused, and have no idea of what their priest is saying, because their priest is speaking in a language that they cannot understand.  PEOPLE KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING THE PULPIT AT ALL TIMES.  Many Catholics are deceived into believing that Latin is a holy mysterious language that their priest is using to communicate with God. Likewise, King James Bible Only preachers use an old form of English that modern English-speaking persons have difficulty understanding NOW HE IS BACKTRACKING, confusing and deceiving them into believing that old English is the holy language of God. THE KING JAMES BIBLE DOES NOT USE OLD ENGLISH.  FACT.

WORSHIPING THE KING OF KINGS OR THE KING JAMES BIBLE?
PSALM 12:6-7 (KJV):
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
King James Bible Only advocates often cite and misapply Psalm 12:6-7 to uphold their doctrine that God preserved His word perfectly in the King James Bible for the English-speaking people. The words of YHWH (the Lord) WHO IS YHWH?  HE IS A PAGAN GOD AND A 19TH AND 20TH CENTURY INVENTION.  ASK THE JEWS WHAT HIS NAME IS, THEY WILL TELL YOU JEHOVAH, JUST LIKE THE KING JAMES.  were preserved in their original Hebrew [2] and Greek [3] language, THE TEXT DOESN’T SAY THAT EITHER. from the generation in which they were written, and they will be preserved forever. NOW WE HAVE A DIFFERENT ISSUE.  IF THE SCRIPTURES ARE PRESERVED IN THE GREEK AND HEBREW, THEN WHICH ONE?  LUJACK NEVER SAYS WHICH MANUSCRIPTS ARE INSPIRED, THEY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER IN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PLACES.  The Scriptures have been kept, copied exactly word-for-word throughout the generations, in the Hebrew and Greek languages that they were written in, have been preserved to this day, and they will be preserved forever. POINT TO IT THEN.  HE NEVER DOES.  These verses do not in any way indicate that the words of YHWH (the Lord) were to be preserved in English, in the King James Bible only. IF LUJACK WERE TO STUDY THE ISSUE, HE WOULD SEE THAT IT POINTS TO THE KING JAMES WHEN THE TEXT SAYS, “PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES”  THERE ARE NO SEVEN PURIFICATIONS IF ONLY THE GREEK AND HEBREW ARE INSPIRED.  The King James English Bible was completed in 1611. The King James is a translation of God’s pure words. God’s actual pure words were preserved from the generation in which they were written, not since 1611. THE ISSUE IS NOT “GENERATION” IT IS “FOR EVER”  Scripture does not declare that God commanded King James of England to translate His Scriptures or that His word was to be preserved perfectly in English by God inspired translators commissioned by King James.  IT ALSO DOESN’T SAY THERE SHOULD ONLY BE 66 BOOKS IN THE BIBLE.  The King James Version is not a perfect English translation of the Scriptures, nor is there any perfect English translation. Many terms or words used in the original Scriptures are currently unknown, yet they are part of the original Scriptures. PROVE THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS DIDN’T KNOW THOSE WORDS… HE CAN’T.  Translators therefore cannot translate words that they do not know, and have often best guessed at translating them in times past. Many modern English speaking people who use a King James Bible also need to use an early modern English dictionary to understand their KJ Bible when casually reading it. NOW THE KING JAMES ISN’T OLD ENGLISH, IT IS EARLY MODERN ENGLISH.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  ALSO, THERE ARE ARCHAIC WORDS IN ANY LARGE BOOK INCLUDING THE MORNING NEWSPAPER, DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD DUMP THE NEWSPAPER?  The King James Bible is hardly a perfect English translation for modern day English speaking persons.  OPINION.  HE IS ARGUING FROM EMOTION WITHOUT ANY FACTS.  Although there are numerous minor errors in the King James Bible, there are no errors that are so major as to throw believers off course from God, THERE ARE IN THE MODERN VERSIONS THAT HE PROMOTES.  or cause people to lose their salvation, THERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, HE THINKS A CHRISTIAN CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION.  but to proclaim that the King James Bible is a 100% pure perfect word-for-word inerrant English translation is a misguided belief and false doctrine. SO DO I LOSE MY SALVATION FOR PREACHING A HERESY?  The King James Bible is a good translation, but not a perfect one.
NO FOUNDATIONAL BASIS FOR CLAIMING THE KING JAMES VERSION PERFECT
The King James Bible was not the first bible published in English. The Geneva Bible was first published in 1560. WYCLIFFE PUBLISHED FIRST.  THEN TYNDALE… HAS HE EVEN LOOKED AT THE INFORMATION?  The King James was later released in 1611. The Geneva Bible was the first bible taken to America and was used by the Pilgrims and Puritans. IT WAS TAKEN FIRST, BUT IT WAS NEVER USED AS MUCH AS THE KJB.  Where in Scripture is it written that the King James Bible is the official God-preserved bible for the English-speaking people? UNNECESSARY BURDEN OF TRUTH.  IT IS A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE, PUTTING MUCH INFORMATION TOGETHER, MUCH LIKE THE TRINITY, WHICH LUJACK ALSO REJECTS NOT SURPRISINGLY On what basis, other than the authority of King James, do King James Bible Only advocates proclaim that only the Authorized King James Version Bible is the pure, perfect, and preserved word of God for the English-speaking people? IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE CLAIMS, WHY DON’T YOU RESEARCH IT BEFORE YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE?  ON THE FLIP SIDE, ON WHAT BASIS DOES LUJACK PROCLAIM THAT ONLY THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW WRITINGS ARE PURE, PERFECT, AND PRESERVED?  Why the King James and not the Geneva or some other English bible translation?  IF YOU DON’T KNOW, READ VANCE’S BOOK AGAIN AND OTHER LIKE HIM.  

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS LEAPING BEETLES AND UNICORNS
LEVITICUS 11:21-22 (KJV):
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

The ‘beetle’ is a translation error in the King James Bible. No species of beetle has special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth. IT DIDN’T SAY THAT, IT SAID “LEAP” Beetles are not the same kind of insects that locusts, bald locusts, and grasshoppers are. STILL INSECTS King James Bible Only defenders sometimes cite the click beetle to explain the beetle error translation. It is estimated that there are about 450,000 different types of beetles in the world. Out of all of those beetles, there are a few that can leap. The click beetle, if inverted on its back, can propel itself without using its legs to return to its feet. The click beetle uses elastic energy in its body and releases it abruptly to launch itself in the air [4]. IT SEEMS LIKE LUJACK ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTION.  WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM?  
The insect, mistranslated ‘beetle’ in the King James Bible, and all the related insects after its kind, are described as having special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth.  THE TEXT DOESN’T SAY ALL THAT, IT SAYS “LEAP” Click beetles do not have these type of jumping legs. The King James insect mistranslated ‘beetle’ and ALL beetles after their kind’ do not correctly fit the description of the leaping insects of Leviticus 11:21-22. No species of beetle has special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth with. The beetle translation error in the King James Bible was properly corrected to ‘cricket’ in the New King James Bible and is listed as cricket in most other English translated versions of Scripture.

NUMBERS 23:22 (KJV):
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.*
*Also: Numbers 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; Isaiah 34:7.
King James Bible Only defenders claim that ‘unicorn’ is not a mistranslation. IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING WE DON’T TALK ABOUT ANYMORE.  They defend the use of the term unicorn by saying that it is not the mythical horned horse-like creature, but it is instead a rhinoceros. UNICORN MEANS “ONE HORNED” THAT FITS THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS PERFECTLY.  The problem with that explanation is that it defies the very thing King James Bible Only defenders proclaim, namely that the King James Bible is the perfect translated word of God for the English-speaking people. IT CAN BE PERFECT AND HAVE A NAME FOR AN ANIMAL THAT WE DON’T USE ANYMORE IN AMERICA.  IT ISN’T WRITTEN ONLY FOR 21ST CENTURY AMERICANS.  IT’S WRITTEN TO THE WORLD.  Ask any English-speaking person what a unicorn is, even back in 1611, and the response would be that it is a mythical horned horse-like creature, not a rhinoceros. MAYBE, BUT IT SURE SEEMS LIKE AN ASSUMPTION. King James Bible Only defenders must translate unicorn to rhino to uphold their doctrine of the inerrancy of the King James Bible, because unicorn is not a proper English term for a rhino. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE PROPER?  HE IS REQUIRING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NECESSARY.  AND IT ISN’T A “TRANSLATION” TO SAY THAT IT IS REFERRING TO A RHINO.  IF YOU THINK THAT, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A TRANSLATION IS… The unicorn translation error in the King James Bible is properly translated to an ox or wild ox in the New King James Bible and most other English translations. LUJACK IS GIVING THE MODERN VERSIONS WAY TOO MUCH GRACE, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THAT ANIMAL IS, INCLUDING LUJACK.  There are many other, mostly minor, translation errors in the King James Bible that are far too numerous to list in this article that have been discovered and listed [5].  SORRY BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A COP OUT… NAME THEM!
242
KING JAMES BIBLE ONLYISM – A CULT-LIKE BELIEF
King James Bible Only advocates share a cult-like misguided faith with the Roman Catholic Church. THAT IS RIDICULOUS, CATHOLICS FOLLOW THE EVER CHANGING WHIMS OF A MAN, WE FOLLOW A BOOK THAT HASN’T CHANGED IN OVER 400 YEARS.  HOW IS THAT THE SAME?  King James Bible Only advocates proclaim that the King James Bible commissioned translators were infallible NOPE, BUT JUST LIKE PAUL AND PETER, THEY WERE FALLIBLE, BUT THEY WERE USED BY GOD TO MAKE AN INFALLIBLE BOOK.  and produced a perfectly translated English version of the Scriptures.  The Catholic Church proclaims that its popes throughout the ages have been, and are, infallible.  Infallibility and perfection are attributes of God. The original Scriptures, inspired by God, are infallible, as only God is infallible. No translation of man, or any pope or clergyman, is infallible or perfect – as all men err. WHAT ABOUT PETER AND MATTHEW AND JAMES?    King James Only advocates sometimes rhetorically ask, “If the King James Version Bible is NOT the perfect translated word of God into English, then what version is?” This is a presumptive question, like asking, “When was the last time you beat your wife?” NO, IF THE TOPIC IS BIBLE VERSIONS, IT IS LEGITIMATE TO ASK WHAT VERSION IS PERFECT.  USE YOUR HEAD LUJACK.  to a man who has never harmed his wife. Catholics, when faced with the errors of Catholic teachings, defend their church by asking the same presumptive type question, “If the Catholic Church is not the one true church, then what church is?”  THIS IS CALLED FALSE EQUIVOCATION.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE DIFFERENT BUT NEITHER ARE HARD TO ANSWER.  There is no true, pure, perfect, preserved English translation of the Holy Scriptures, HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A PURE GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT… just as there is no one true apostolic Christian church that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be.  The Jews are God’s chosen people who were given His perfect word. The Tanakh (Old Testament) Scriptures were written in Hebrew WHICH TEXT? MASORETIC OR LENINGRAD TEXT OR THE ALEPPO TEXT?  and the B’rit Hadashah (New Testament) Scriptures books were written in either Greek or Hebrew WHICH ONE?  SINIATICUS, VATICANUS, BYZANTINE?  DOES HE NOT KNOW THERE ARE DIFFERENCES?  , have been copied word-for-word, and have been preserved. NOT WORD FOR WORD. Imperfect translators have translated His perfect preserved word into the English language and other languages. OK?????
King James translators were neither infallible nor perfect. TRUE, LIKE THE APOSTLE JOHN, BUT WHAT THEY PRODUCED WAS INFALLIBLE AND PERFECT.  God did preserve His perfect word, but His perfect word was not perfectly translated to English for the English-speaking people by King James translators. God’s perfect word was also not perfectly translated to the Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese THIS IS A LANGUAGE FAMILY…, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Indian, NOT A LANGUAGE Japanese, Korean, Latin, Moldavian, REALLY JUST ROMANIAN, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, SWISS IS NOT A LANGUAGE…Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Welch, LIKE THE GRAPE JUICE?  HAHAHA. ALSO ALL PEOPLE IN WALES SPEAK ENGLISH. Yemeni,  ALSO CALLED “ARABIC” DUH… Zulu, or to any other written language of the world.

WHAT ENGLISH VERSION BIBLE SHOULD BELIEVERS USE?
The King James Bible is a good, but not perfect translation of the Holy Scriptures. The King James Bible (KJV) should be used in conjunction and cross-referenced with the New King James Bible (NKJV), the Halleluyah Scriptures (HSV), the Tree of Life Scriptures (TLV) and other good versions of Scripture when searching for the truth of God’s word.  PLEASE DON’T TAKE THIS MAN’S ADVICE.  WHEN YOU USE MULTIPLE VERSIONS, YOU MAKE YOURSELF GOD, THAT IS, YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.  YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU DON’T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.  PRAY AND FIND OUT WHICH VERSION IS GOD’S WORD.  THEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE.  IF YOU’RE HONEST, YOU’LL GET YOURSELF A KING JAMES.

Baruch Spinoza

I’ve been doing some reading on the 17th Century Atheistic (or pantheistic or agnostic…) Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza.  This man became the first philosopher after the Reformation to openly state the principles of the modern “science” of Biblical Criticism.  Many writers and historians credit Spinoza as the founder of the “science” of Biblical Criticism.  He saw that the only argument against his philosophy were applicable if the Bible was true, so he anticipated the attack, and preemptively attacked first in his book, Theological-Political Treatise.

At first glance, that would seem to give fuel to the fire of antisemitism and that this damnable “science” is an invention of the Jews.  But as is usual with history, we must read between the lines.  If we do, we are able to discern the old Whore of Babylon doing what she has always done: attack the word of God.

Spinoza was educated by former Jesuit, Franciscus van den Enden.  We must note here that “former” is a loose term when connected to the Society of Jesus.  Often times (and time and space do not permit examples here) Jesuits found it convenient to openly throw off the public profession of Jesuitism, only to keep it on behind closed doors.

Interestingly enough, when asked about God, Albert Einstein replied that, “I believe in Spinoza’s God.”  Whatever specifics he may have had in mind, Einstein explicitly states his categorical rejection of the King James Bible.  We are reminded of Proverbs 13:13: “Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed.”

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

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…


 

I believe the King James Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  

 

This matter has been discussed so thoroughly by men like Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Sam Gipp, William Grady, Gail Riplinger, and Kyle Stephens that it seems the argument would be finished.  Nevertheless, some items should be highlighted.  The average Independent Baptist church will give a cheap profession to believe the King James, but when pressed, they will retreat to the foolish profession of a belief in the Textus Receptus (TR) for their final authority.  Or as it was given to me by email, “both were preserved and (we) use both.”  There are many reasons that this is a faulty position.

First, there is more than one version of the Textus Receptus.  That would lead to the position that there are multiple final authorities which is a contradiction of terms.  “Multiple final authorities” is the same as saying NO final authority.  This elementary logic clearly demonstrates the error of saying we “use both” the KJB and the TR.  Having said that, the typical Independent Baptist is either lying or uneducated because there are multiple versions of the TR.  Each of these men, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzivir, Colinaeus, and Scrivener, wrote multiple versions of the TR themselves, pushing the total number of TR versions to around 20.  Which version do you mean when you say, “I believe the TR.”?  The version is never named.  Always remember that the differences between the editions of the TR are greater than any supposed differences between the so-called editions of the King James Bible.  

Second, the TR-only crowd never addressed the Old Testament (OT).  By definition the TR is only the New Testament, so the question would be, “Point to the inspired OT.”  Again, this issue is never addressed.  When I am asked the question, I point to the English King James OT that is on the table in front of me.  The average Independent Baptist cannot.  I believe that the issue is an issue of ignorance.  Some will point to the Hebrew OT printed with the TR by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  But this will not do.  As good as that text is, there are errors in it.  

Let me give an example.  Clearly, most people have not dealt with the Jews out of their OT because if they would have taken them to one of the greatest messianic prophecies in the OT, Psalm 22:16, they would have seen the discrepancy between the truth (KJB) and the corrupted manuscripts of the Hebrew OT.  The KJB states, “they pierced my hands and my feet.”  The Hebrew reads, “like a lion, my hands and feet.”  What nonsense!  It is an independent clause without the necessary verb.  This demonstrates that as careful as the Jews have been when they took care of the OT (as compared to the treatment of the devil’s scribes with the Alexandrian NT), they were not above changing the text to remove prophecies of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.  This example should suffice.  But these issues are never discussed by the average Independent Baptist who just wants to leave “well enough” alone and just tell people that they believe the TR.

Third, there are  differences between the KJB and the TR in the New Testament (NT) as well.  These issues have been thoroughly dissected by many authors over the years so a few examples should suffice.  In Acts 12:4, the TR says “Passover” but the KJB says “Easter.”  Easter is correct.  In Acts 19:37, the TR says “robbers of temples” but the KJV says “robbers of churches.”  The KJB is correct.  Add in the differences in the book of Revelation and you have a whole heap of times that the King James and the TR differ.  Most “Baaaptists” have two final authorities, the King James Bible and the TR.  This issue is one where a Bible Believer and an independent Baptist should just part ways.

Fourth, the issue of translation is never discussed.  None would dispute the fact that there are NO speakers of Koine Greek alive today.  This is the language in which the NT was written.  So how do we know what the words mean?  The average Christian (Independent Baptist included) will go to a source like a Strong’s or Young’s concordance of the Bible.  But where did they get their definitions?  These got their definitions from sources outside of Koine Greek often from the Attic Greek of the Greek Philosophers.  These are the men that Paul called “too superstitious” in Acts 17, but apparently they can be a trusted source for finding out what our Bible REALLY means.  And even if those definitions are correct, in a sense, how could they know how it fit in the translation grammatically?  Definitions of words change depending on how they are used in a sentence.  For example:  I LIKE to be tall vs I felt LIKE I was tall.  These differences can make translating very complex.  In these situations, dictionaries can be very little help.  The translators of the King James had a huge advantage over any translator today.  These men were a generation or two removed from the fall of Constantinople in 1453.  From this last bastion of what is called Medieval or Byzantine Greek, came scholars fluent in a language much closer to Koine Greek than Attic.  These scholars fled throughout western and northern Europe and taught their considerable familiarity with the language of the Greek NT to the men who would teach the men who translated the KJB.  This expertise cannot be matched today and was definitely not matched by men like Strong or Young.  To go back to their definitions is to go back to the definitions of queers like Socrates and Fascists like Plato.

Hopefully, these reasons will open the reader up to, at least, considering that the King James Bible is God’s final authority for the years 1611 to today and that it is the fulfillment of the Biblical verses Psalm 12:6,7, Isaiah 34:16, Matthew 24:35, and II Timothy 3:16, etc.  It is a sad fact that the average Independent Baptist church in your town believes that man can sit in judgement on the word of God and believes there are errors in it.  A final example will suffice.  In my town there are really 2 Independent Baptist churches of any significance.  When you walk out of the auditorium of one, you will see a sign behind the secretary’s desk that says something to this effect, “Love suffers long and is kind…”  This is a perversion of I Cor 13:4 and anyone familiar with the chapter (I know this EXCLUDES 97% of all Christians) knows God is talking about “charity” and not the mongrelized “love” of perverted Americans.  They are supposedly “Bible Believers” and “King James Only,”  but somewhere along the line, they have compromised.  God help them (Rev 22:18,19).