23039563 av verses rom to rev to 59

8/14/2019 23039563 AV Verses Rom to Rev to 59

1/40

AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks issues 1-59)

Romans to Revelation

Romans 1: 16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:.

for I am not ashamed of the gospel: RV, NRSV, ESV, etc.

For I am not ashamed of the glad tidings; JND

The words, of Christ, which follow here, are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts. JFBCommentary.

The oldest and best manuscripts are those rejected by the early churches. Hence they have been preserved

in monastery dustbins and Vatican vaults.

The words of Christ are found in the majority of manuscripts. They have been removed too often from

other verses for us to regard it as accidental on the part of scribes. This is a wilful satanic attack on

Scripture.

What gospel is it where Christ is removed? All that is left is an anaemic mess that offends no one and

brings none to the Saviour.

Romans 5:1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.These words, as they appear in the AV Bible have brought comfort to a myriad of believers. Thepeace spoken of is the present possession of every soul justified by faith, i.e. of every born againbeliever. But the RV would rob us of this peace, making it a thing to be striven for, even afterconversion, by altering the reading to therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God. Butour peace has been secured on the cross once and for all.Metzger (whose feminized NRSV has now hit the market) would have us to believe that the 'error'

came about and was perpetuated in the vast majority of manuscripts because scribes, copying bydictation, misheard a word. However the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus scribes managed to hearcorrectly.Romans 5:11.... we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received theatonement.

Some commentators (Newell on Romans) like to tell us that the atonement is an Old Testamentsubject, not taught in the New Testament. Reconciliation replaces Atonement.F E Stallan, in What the Bible Teaches says this about this verse,

The word rendered atonement in the AV is better rendered reconciliation. In v.10 the verb form(katalasso) is given; in this verse it is the noun (katallage). The work of atonement is the offeringof Christ on the cross as a sacrifice [Stallan doesnt agree with Newell R. S.]. This could not bereceived by mankind. What has been received is the reconciliation, the change of state frombeing enemies to being accepted in the beloved (Eph.1:6). Reconciliation is the effect ofatonement.If the atonement is not a New Testament truth, then, as Stallan shows, we cannot be reconciledeither. This raises the issue; why then is it necessary to tamper with the English translation?Some will tell us it is for the sake of consistency, because only one root Greek word is usedthroughout. The beauty of the English language is in its breadth. In a multitude of places there are

55

55


2/40

many English words that can adequately translate one Greek word. The AV translators gaveexpression to this when Dr Smith wrote, For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?[keep in mind that Dr Smith was writing about translation and not about inspiration R. S.].Whyshould we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Use one precisely, when we may useanother no less fit as commodiously? Translating for King James; John Boiss notes edited byWard Allen.We point out that this is not the same as that practiced by the modern versionists. The AVtranslators nevertheless used formal equivalence whereas the modern practice is to use dynamicequivalence.In the verse under revue, you will note that at atonement in the AV Bible, a marginal alternativeis given, i.e. or, reconciliation. This instructs us that the translators considered the choice oftranslation carefully and were all agreed that atonement was the better word for this particularverse, though they had translated the Greek word differently elsewhere. We can say that ALL thetranslators were in agreement, for in the case of different words being suggested, John Boisrecorded them and gave the reasons why they should not be included in the body of thetranslation. He made NO notes on Romans 5:11, so we conclude that ALL were agreed that"reconciliation" would have no more than a marginal reference.We learn then, that in 1611AD atonement and reconciliation were almost synonymous but thatatonement carried the fuller meaning in this instance.

The Romish Douay version of 1582AD was the first English bible to change from atonement.The word is found in Tyndale, Geneva, etc. I have copies of all these books mentioned and havechecked it out for myself. I also have a facsimile 1611AD Bible. Rome is behind all modernversions. Would that our brethren who love to appear scholarly would check out the facts forthemselves also.Atonement in the 16th century meant at-one-ment (according to my etymological dictionary). Thebeliever has received this being at-one-ment with God and thereby is reconciled to God. What joywe have in God! I believe in the New Testament teaching of atonement because I read it in myNew Testament.Stallan in his statement above, this [atonement] could not be received by mankind demonstratesthe critical view that if words of Scripture conflict with ones theology then the Scripture must bechanged and not the theology.

Romans 6:3so many of us as were baptizedSome have inferred from these verses that some believers were not baptized. As English is nolonger taught we can understand the confusion of some today. They do not realise that a relativepronoun would be needed to produce this interpretation, and the verse would read "as many of usas were baptized". In this context "so many" means whosoever. Anybody at all who was baptizedinto Jesus Christ was thereby baptized into His death. The verse is not speaking of water-baptism, a view which supports the difficulty that some have with the verse, but with a spiritualexperience. If it were water-baptism in view, then I didn't begin to walk in newness of life untilsome time after I was born again. I believe that Romans 6 gives us the doctrinal import of whathappens at conversion, which is then publicly proclaimed in the act of water-baptism.

Scripture does not recognize unbaptized believers. The NT teaching demands total immersionupon confession of faith.Romans 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk notafter the flesh, but after the Spirit.The words 'who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit' are omitted from modern versions. Wenote what various commentators have to say about it.

56

56


3/40

The words are probably a gloss introduced from v.4Dean Alford. Chrysostom accepted this verse as part of the text.Sadler. [ he stood very muchalone in his view] The Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, with Origen and Athanasius omit the phraseSanday and Headlam These words are wanting in the foremost representations of every group of authorities(except, perhaps, those which belong to the region of Syria). Ellicot.The group of commentators given above do not offer their own opinions. They were not dogmatic.They recorded what they thought they had discovered. We have long since learned how far offfrom the truth they were, concerning the RT.

Egypt was the home of apostasy and was Origen's stamping ground after he had beenexcommunicated. Syria was where the gospel was established. The Syriac Peshitta was probablythe first faithful translation of the word of God. This gives us an insight into the background ofBible mutilation. We see a false bible emerging before the end of the second century AD.But now consider another group of commentators. These were men who were among us inassembly fellowship:

The latter part of the verse is wrongly inserted. According to the most authoritative mss

the right position of that clause is at the end of v.4 Vine.

[The words] are not part of the original text of v.1 (cf.RV RSV NEB) but were introducedunder the influence of verse 4b where they properly belongFF Bruce

The latter half of the verse is considered to be an interpolation and should be omitted. Itcomes in at 4.4 which is its proper placeFE Stallan.

Darby omitted the phrase from his New Translation without even a footnote to explain itsabsence. He is guilty of taking from the word of God.These men passed judgment on the word of God and were ready to alter it. They did not merelyrecord what others had said.

So what is the evidence?For inclusionThe majority of the cursive manuscripts, plus the Old Latin Version.For exclusionAleph *, B C D* F G, and a few cursives.This handful of excluding mss are the same popish mss that we keep coming up against. Theyform the basis of the modern versions, particularly the first two mss.It is with deep regret and utter dismay that we find so many of our present leading Bible teachersfollowing the apostate line and doing so with such dogmatism against all the evidence.

Romans 8: 28And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who arethe called according to his purpose.

James White has We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those wholove God, to those who are called according to His purpose. This is the NASB version whichWhite quotes in the book Debating Calvinism five points, two view, which he co-authors withDave White.

57

57


4/40

Romans 9: 11-12

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that thepurpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth;) Itwas said unto her, the elder shall serve theyounger.

Some have suggested that the opening words the children are not in the original and should beomitted. The omission will make it easier to refute Calvinistic teaching. One writer (Chosen inChrist; James Crookes; J Ritchie Ltd. P.20) says The words the children are actually not in theoriginal text, and their interpolation obscures Pauls argument.

The writer presumably does not understand why the AV Bible has words in italics. Words in italicsindicate that the word or words are not present in Greek or Hebrew but are needed to makebetter sense in the English translation. If the words the children were to be omitted from the verseno change would be made to the meaning For being not yet born..It was said unto her, theelder shall serve the younger. The omission therefore calls for an ellipsis as the reader mightask himself the question, Who being not yet born? and finds the answer in the context,Rebeccas children, the twins Jacob and Esau.

The book Chosen in Christwas written to refute the claims of Calvinism. Calvinism is false of

course in every respect, but the case is severely weakened if a writer thinks he must rubbish theAuthorized Bible to prove it.

We add that the election of v.11 does not relate to salvation. To argue that because God in Hissovereignty dealt with certain individuals in a special way, God therefore planned from eternity toelect certain other individuals to salvation is tenuous at the very least.

Romans 9: 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been asSodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very smallremnant, we should have been as Sodom, andwe should have been like unto Gomorrah.

D Kaus, in his book Choosing a Bible, writes that Paul

uses the Greek word that means descendants (sperma, seed) instead of survivors,thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage.

Kaus is stating that it is not the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himselfgot it wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didnt understand Isaiahsprophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted critic can now help us!He also wants us to understand that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOTresponsible for its authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantlysupplied the wrongword.Take warning if you do not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture,

and if you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible today, there islittle likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven.Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors. Joel 2: 32 is instructive; And it shallcome to pass, thatwhosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for inmount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in theremnant whom the LORD shall call.Isaiah did not write of those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. Theywere those who were called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writingabout. Gods survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to hell.

58

58


5/40

Romans 10:9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heartthat God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.The Good News [?] bible changes this to "if you confess that Jesus is Lord. And believe that Godraised him from death, you will be saved". In this one verse the GNB makes five major changes,(ignoring the change of singular thou to plural you). The point of the passage is missed in itspresentation of the double testimonyheart and mouthinternal and external evidence of thepossession of salvation. The tense is changed from shalt confess; shalt believe, (aorist in theGreek) to present, thereby losing the impact of the imperative nature of the command to confessand believe. Then, the Lord was not raised from death. One might be brought back from death,but not raised from it. The Scripture tells us that the Lord was raised from (among) the dead. Amore serious change is the alteration of Scripture to read Jesus is Lord. This has given rise to thepopular "Jesus is Lord" slogan that we see everywhere. It robs Christ of His deity. Every tongueshould confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Phil.2:11. So in Rom.10:9, there is no verb (is). Rather,the confession is to the whole person of Christ, the Lord Jesus. The emphasis is not solely uponHis Lordship but upon His full possession of deity and humanity

Romans 10: 15

How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of goodthings.

How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news. NRSV etc.

The gospel of peace is rejected in modern versions. It is not wanted by the earthling who lusts rather for

material things. Peace with God is brought through preaching. It calls for repentance and faith and does

not fit in with modern evangelicalism.

The words gospel of peace are well established in the majority of manuscripts and ancient translations.

There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa. 57: 21

Romans 14: 10

.for we must all stand before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ.

for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. ESV, NRSVfor we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God. JND

Altering the Scripture to read judgment seat of God makes Christ a liar, for He said The Father judgeth

no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John 5: 20.

The judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers (we must all stand). But God has a throne. It is not

described as a bema. It is where all unbelievers will stand, at the end of time and it is a throne. There will

be no pleading ones case at this throne. All present will be consigned to the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 15

It is a false notion to believe that the whole human race will appear before God at the end of time.

Romans 15: 16That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of

God....

....and do the work of a priest in the service of his good news CEV..... in the priestly service of the gospel of God. ESV....I serve as a priest by spreading the Good News of God. GW....serving as a priest of Gods good news. HCSB

Commentators and modern versions of Scripture are almost universally agreed that Paul,according to this verse, acted as a priest. Yet there has never been discovered one single Greekmanuscript containing this verse where mention is made of a priest. This is a case of Nicolaitan

59

59


6/40

interference (see Rev. 2: 6 and make sure you understand what Nicolaitanism is all about).hierourgounta (ministering) occurs here only in the New Testament. The emphasis is on the workand not the person. Parkhurst, in his Greek dictionary describes it as being employed in thesacred business of preaching or administering the gospel. He makes no mention of priests.Beware those who do.The AV translators were familiar enough with the word priest and could have used it if it had beenrequired, as they did from Matthew to Acts in regard to the Jewish system, and in Hebrewsconcerning Christ and the contrast with the Jews high priest. In Revelation all believers aredescribed as priests.

Romans 16:24The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.The enemies of the Received Text and the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible are convincedthat here is a clear error. the western authorities have it here instead of in xvi.20b said F F Brucein his commentary on Romans. How careless of them! They are to be regarded as so stupid thatthey slipped the sentence in the second time only four verses down the page. They didnt noticethat they had already written the verse. Such is the contempt held by the mighty scholars for whathappens to be the word of God.W E Vine in his commentary on Romans is rather more crafty. He misses the verse out entirely

and without comment.F E Stallan in his commentary on Romans (What the Bible Teaches), wants his readers to know

thatthe RV, with most critical editors, rejects this verse as an interpolation. It is substantially the sameas v.20 with the exception that the word all is included. If the verse is authentic it adds anothernote of encouragement for the Romans from Paul.One must not think that Stallan was more willing to accept the AV reading than was Bruce andVine. His words if the verse is authentic means he did not trust his AV Bible, neither the RV, norany other version. His words cast doubt on the word of God as do all the volumes in the What theBible Teaches series. The support for the inclusion of v.24 is overwhelming. It is found inTyndales Bible, also in the Great Bible, the Geneva, and the Bishops Bible. Stephens, Beza, andElzevir kept it. It is found in many MSS and in the vast majority of cursive MSS. It is in the Old

Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Harclean and is quoted by six of the so-called Early Fathers.We accept and believe what we find in our Bible. This we do as believers always have done downthrough the ages. From the evidence supplied, as with this verse under consideration, we arereassured that our acceptance is not due to prejudice or vain tradition, but because of faith in ourGod. It is faith in the God Who promised to preserve His word and so clearly has done. Verse 20was an encouragement first to the saints at Rome, following a warning as to the division makers.Verse 24 concludes the whole epistle which is then followed by a doxology.A word about them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye havelearned. Paul says mark them and avoid them. I learned as a young man in assembly fellowshipthat I could trust my Bible. Those who want to take my Bible from me and supplant it with anotherwhich is not a Bible, I mark and avoid. There are those among us who openly and publicly scornthe AV Bible. They are division makers. Mark them and avoid them.

1 Cor.1:18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.Critics tell us it was never a cross but a stake. If no cross then Christ was not crucified. TheHebrews had no word for cross. That barbaric form of punishment being foreign to them. ThusPeter (Acts.5:30. 10:39) and Paul (Acts.13:29, Gal.3:13) preaching to the Jews and speaking ofChrist on the tree had in mind the words of Deut.21:23, He that is hanged (on a tree) is accursedof God. The word for tree in the NT may also be translated stave, but it is never translated cross.The word used for cross is never translated any other way, i.e. never spoken of as a stave. The

60

60


7/40

symbol of the cross was well enough known even in pre-Christian times.1 Cor.1:21It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."Not so", say the critics, "there is nothing wrong with our preaching! It is the message itself thatmust be defective." So they mutilate these verses to read, "The message of the cross isfoolishness to those who are perishing.... God was pleased through the foolishness of what waspreached to save those who believe". By this they ignore the context and the use of the Greekword logos. For ye are enriched by him in all utterance (logos) ....(v.5). The Corinthians weregifted in their preaching. But, Paul said that his preaching was not with wisdom of words (logos),i.e. not with clever speech lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He would usethe foolishness of preaching, simply declaring what God had done on sending His Son to die onthe cross for our sins, rather than to rely on eloquence, rhetoric, intellectual debate etc. whichmight impress many and induce false professions of salvation. The modernists state that it is thecross of Christ which is foolishness in v.21, because that is what is being preached. That is noless than a foul and wicked blasphemy. So why do they have "your speaking" for logos in v.5?they cannot be consistent even in the same chapter.1 Corinthians 3:1

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even asunto babes in Christ.Vine in his commentary on this verse, pretending to quote the AV reading, omits the word even.He then tells usthe word rendered carnal is sarkinos (in the best texts).Here and in Rom.7:14 it signifiespartaking of the nature of the flesh. In verse 3 the Apostle uses the word sarkikos, a severer term,signifying sensual, i.e. under the control of the fleshly nature instead of being governed by theSpirit of God.We have no doubt that it is the sarkinos man who is confused as to the best texts. The wordsarkinos occurs once only in Scripture; neither here, nor in Rom.7:14 where the word is againsarkikos, but at 2 Cor.3:3 (but in fleshy tables of the heart) where the contrast is with tables ofstone. The suffix inos, the Greek scholars tell me, tells what a thing is made of. So, sarkinos =

made of flesh. It doesnt speak of its nature, but of its constitution.The conclusion is, if sarkinos is the correct word here, then these Corinthians know nothing ofconversion. No radical change has taken place in their lives. This is all they are; just men of theflesh without the indwelling Spirit of God. Yet Paul calls them brethren, babes in Christ.Westcott and Hort, the great 19th century mutilators of Scripture, knew nothing of conversion(read their biographies!), hence the alteration of scripture here.The best texts, according to Vine, are the most mutilated, perverted, and popish. They areessentially the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.The word sarkikos is the reading found in the Received Text. It is, according to theHodges/Farstad Majority text, to be found in at least 85%-90% of manuscripts and is opposedonly by the Alexandrian consensus of manuscripts. Greisbachs 1805 Greek New Testamentretains the word. Greisbach is sometimes referred to as the father of Textual Criticism and wouldhave changed the word had he known then of an alternative reading. This raises other issues.

Were parts of the word of God really lost until discovered later in the 19th century in a monasterywaste bin?The fact is, these Corinthians were more than mere men of flesh, they were indwelt by the HolySpirit. They were saved men. But they were still sarkikos. An unconverted man cannot bedescribed thus and this is why the scholars dont like the word here.These believers had had the power connected but they werent switched on. They were usingtheir spiritual gifts for carnal motives. There was still envying, and strife, and divisions amongthem. Paul was therefore unable to speak to them as spiritual men, mature in the faith. He wouldhave to address them as he would to babes in Christ. Paul didnt say they WERE babes, ratherhe would have to speak to them as though they were.

61

61


8/40

1 Corinthians 4: 16 (See also 1Thess. 2: 14)Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers ( mimetes) of me.

Therefore I urge you, imitate me. NKJV and all other modern versions.

Monkeys and parrots can imitate. Only converted men and women can follow the apostle. So wenote that mimetes is consistently translated followers in the AV Bible. (7 times).Plato used mimetes to describe an imposter, a mere actor. The Spirit of God uses the word in analtogether different sense, hence the English translation follower.

1 Cor. 7:15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage insuch cases: But God hath called us to peace.W S Stevely, in an ambiguous letter to the editor of Believers Magazine, June 2001, by quotingDarby, appears to be promoting the view that 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows for divorce. Verse 39 putsthe lie to this. The marriage bond remains until the death of one of the spouses. Bear in mind thatdivorce is not implied in verse 27. Being loosed from a wife happens when the wife dies.

The meaning of this verse is quite plain, that if an unsaved spouse is determined to leave his orher partner (presumably because the one has got saved since the marriage), the believer has nomoral or legal or spiritual obligation to prevent the departure. Divorce is not mentioned.The NIV weakens the statement by making nine changes in this one verse. It reads, But if theunbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances;God has called us to live in peace.The change from under bondage to bound changes the meaning and allows the verse to suggesta breaking of the marriage bond, for the word bound occurs at verses 27 and 39 in this chapterwhere a legal married bond is clearly indicated.Darby in his New Translation also made the change to bound. But in his Synopsis he wrote,If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man or woman) was free "let himdepart." The brother was no longer bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife.

Thus he adds his interpretation to the passage. Therefore we are led to understand that if anunbelieving spouse should leave the believing partner, he or she may regard himself, or herself,as unmarried and the inference is that such a one could then remarry.J J Lias, in his commentary on this verse points out what was the Romish view.The Roman Catholic divines, e.g. Lapide and Ambrosiaster, as well as the Canon law, held thatin the case of the heathen partner refusing to live with the other when he or she embracedChristianity, the Christian was justified in contracting a fresh marriage. Cambridge Bible forSchools and Colleges; First Epistle to the Corinthians.1 Corinthians 7:27,28Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a

wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.A commentator informs us,It is often asserted that the Bible never directly sanctions remarriage. This is not true. 1Corinthians 7:27,28 (NKJV correctly) says: Are you loosed (i.e. divorced) from a wife? Do notseek a wife. But it then adds: but even if you do marry, you have not sinned. Evangelical Times;July 2000, p14.My copy of the NKJV doesnt mention being divorced. By placing (i.e. divorced) within theapostrophes one concludes that it is to be regarded as part of the text. The Evangelical Times

62

62


9/40


10/40

at the end of the race, not during it. It is then that he is rejected, when the race is over.

No Scripture teaches the rejection of a person at the Judgment Seat (don't confuse this with theGreat White Throne judgment). But this verse does teach the rejection of a person. So what Paulis saying is that he practiced what he preached. It is possible for some to preach the Christian lifeto others but not to live it themselves which would be hypocritical. Such persons would be withouteternal life. We fear that there are now those among us who preach the gospel or a form of itwhile they themselves are not saved. Be warned says the Apostle, there was a mixed multitude inthe wilderness and all but two of them perished there in the wilderness. God was not pleased withthem. So let us be Bible believers, and accept the solemn admonitions of Scripture. The personwho does not accept the rigours of the Christian life, though making a profession of it, is areprobate. All true believers are winners. All who love His appearing receive the crown ofrighteousness. There is no question of their being saved throughout the race only to be lost at theend of it. The believer heeds the admonitions of Scripture while the reprobate ignores them.

1 Corinthians 10: 1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant....

Preachers like their audience to believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few crossreferences in Darby or Vine etc.

We have an example in 1 Cor. 10: 1. The preacher reads the verse then says If you have a goodtranslation it will read for, and not moreover. Therefore a good translation will be Darbys orthe RV or the ASV not forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will bethe AV of course.

The Greek word translated moreover in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the GreekReceived Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then, when, for, etc.(Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be translated for. See Acts 17: 21. youmay find another example if you search hard enough.).

Our preacher never learned Greek. I havent either (more is the pity) What the preacher reallywants you to know is if the Brethren didnt produce it, it isnt any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram,Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has

written elsewhere, most preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil.Reading for does not improve the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know thatPauls comment in v.1 builds on what has gone immediately before.1 Cor.11:24Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.The word 'broken' is omitted in the RV, but has the support of the majority of the Byzantine mss.and lectionary copies. It is also in the Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writingsof some of the early fathers. The Codex Siniaticus is one of the few mss, omitting the word, buteven this has been altered by a corrector to include it.In this there is " no contradiction and no departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of

the Passover Lamb were not to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken.The body of the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed, and when it wasskinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken, Hisbody was broken when the crown of thorns broke the flesh of His brow, when the scourging brokethe flesh of His body, when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and His feet, and when thespear broke the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover symbolism inthat His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 - He was wounded for ourtransgressions." Quoted from TBS. Leaflet No.65.1.Corinthians 13

64

64


11/40

charityThe battle still rages as to whether agape is better translated 'love' rather than 'charity' as in theAV Bible at 1 Cor.13. It is a futile battle. The translators knew what they were doing in 1611 andthe matter was settled by Dean Burgon more than 100 years ago when Westcott and Hort firstmeddled with the word. I quote from Revision Revised by Dean Burgon :-"agape -a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the wordexpresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity wouldbe the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on 'that most excellent gift,the gift of Charity', and the general substitution of 'Love' in its place? Do not these learned menperceive that 'Love' is not an equivalent term? Can they be required to be told that, because of S.Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of 'CHARITY', and the use which has been made of the wordin sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word 'Charity' connotes manyideas to which the word 'Love' is an entire stranger? that 'Love', on the contrary, has come toconnote many unworthy notions which in 'Charity' find no place at all? And if this be so, how canour Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of theChristian graces,and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to beonly traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearlyunderstood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word 'charity' has

established itself in the phraseology of the Church,-ancient, mediaeval, modern,-as well as in ourBook of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in theEnglish language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the bestunderstood of 'household words'? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberatelyobliterated from the 13th chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the nine-foldrecurrence of the name of 'that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY'?"

1 Cor.14:2He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. (See alsovv. 4,13,14,19,27)Some like to tell that the word unknown, being in italics, should not be there. We should read hewho speaks in a tongue. (NKJV etc). Tongue is synonymous with language i.e., human

language. Therefore those who do not speak in a tongue are babies, madmen, or Pentecostaliststhey are not using human language. The NKJV reading is seen to be meaningless.The inclusion of unknown in the AV Bible gives sense to the translation and relates to he whospeaks in a language not known to any present. The word is not needed in vv. 5, 18, where wehave the plural tongues indicating a multiplicity of languages.1 Cor. 15: 55O grave, where is thy victoryA writer (H Barnes; Believers Magazine; Oct.2002, p.302) tells us,

The word grave in the New Testament is usually a translation of the Greek word hades, theunseen world, the present residence of departed souls. It is thusbeing with Christ for believers (Phil 1.23), or else being in torment in hell for unbelievers (Lk.

16.28).This is regurgitated Scofieldism, namely the old fable ofhades having two compartments, one forbelievers and the other for unbelievers.Grave is the translation ofhades only ONCE in the whole of Scripture. It is found in 1 Cor. 15:55, O grave, where is thy victory? There is no victory for the grave where the believer isconcerned. But for the unbeliever the grave declares that his soul is in hell. The usual wordtranslated grave in the New Testament is mnemeion as found in John 11: 17 he had lain inthe grave four days already. Mneema is translated graves in Rev. 11:9.No believer goes down into hades. Ps. 9: 17 tells us The wicked shall be turned into hell ( sheol).

65

65


12/40

That is, those who go down into hell are without exception, wicked. Amos spoke ofSheol asbeing beneath, and heaven as being above (9: 3). David spoke of the ungodly as like sheep, theyare laid in the grave (sheol), but that was not his expectation. But God will redeem my soul fromthe power of the grave, for he shall receive me. (Ps. 49: 14). The power of the grave (hell) is tohold its prey in torments for eternity. David expected God to receive his soul at death, and notsheol.Sheolin the Old Testament equates precisely with hades in the New Testament. This will assureus that Christ did not descend into hell.Attempts to tone down the awfulness of hell must be viewed with the deepest suspicion. Thesuggestion that believers go down into hades (which is hell) is a heretical distortion of the truth.

2 Corinthians 2:17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God.This verse has been handled deceitfully by many, and that is what this corrupting means. TheWord may be corrupted orally or it may be corrupted in its written form. Modern versionists, whorealize that this verse condemns them, change it to read "unlike so many we do not peddle theword of God." Do they not indeed? Modern versions are all about Big Money for the publishers.What Paul was referring to was that some were adulterating the word of God for base gain. Therewere words and passages which these ungodly men found unpalatable. Things which were a

savour of death unto death. Unpopular doctrines which if taught would reduce their popularity andstanding. Things concerning the deity of Christ and His perfect humanity. Things concerning

judgment to come which mere professors of salvation and not possessors of salvation would notlike to hear.The sentence has been accurately and faithfully translated in our Authorized Bible.2 Corinthians 3:12,13Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not asMoses....Some, who dislike great plainness of speech, think that the "hope" just gave Paul courage in hispreaching. Seeing that he is contrasting his preaching to that of Moses, this interpretation impliesthat Moses was cowardly. The contrast, however, is between what is open and what was hidden.

The moral fibre of the Lord's servants has nothing to do with the subject. The AV translators werewell aware that the word "boldness" might have been used instead of "plainness". This is whythey placed that alternative in the margin. But modern students fail to grasp that boldness hasseveral meanings such as courage, well-marked, clear, etc. If we put it into bold print it becomesplain enough. We are not using courageous print! So let the context decide it. Preachers who liketo change the words of Scripture confuse the teaching of Scripture by their actions. Let us allcontinue to use great plainness of speech in our preaching.2 Corinthians 4: 4....the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,&1 Timothy 1: 11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,

These two verses read in the NIV as The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, and (keepingclose to the AV) the glorious gospel of the blessed God. Darby, much earlier, altered the AVreadings to the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ, and according to the gladtidings of the glory of the blessed God. Other modern versions have similar readings. Thus wefind the NKJB changes the reading to the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, but like theNIV, does not change the reading in 1 Timothy.Similar constructions are found in Romans 8: 21, the glorious liberty of the children of God. Darbyisnt happy with liberty being glorious. so he changed the reading to the liberty of the glory of thechildren of God. He believed the glory belonged to the children of God. So he wrote in his

66

66


13/40

footnote to this verse,Glorious liberty as in the A.V. does not give the sense. The creature has no part in the liberty ofgrace; but it will have in that which glory gives.This seems to be just one more of Darbys gobble-de-gook statements. He has glory havingliberty instead of liberty being glorious.

Tyndale had no doubt that the sense and construction of the sentence demanded gloriousgospel and he was well aware that Wycliffe (Translating from Jeromes Vulgate ) the gospel ofthe glory. The AV men, translating in committee, agreed with Tyndale and this is the Bible ourGod has given to the English speaking believers.Every time a reading is questioned, the faithfulness of God is impugned.2 Corinthians 4: 16....but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. (RSV,ESV)

Changing man to nature changes the meaning of the verse. The Greek word commonlytranslated nature isphusis but it is not used in this verse. We are partakers of the divine nature(phusis) 2 Peter 1: 14). We see therefore that nature is not the subject here.Conservative commentators are generally agreed that the outward man refers to our mortalbodies but the inward is the immaterial being which responds to the continual refreshing work ofthe Holy Spirit.

Reference to an outer nature seems to be linking it to the old man which is crucified with Christ.and cannot merely waste away.

Galatians 3:24The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Naughty pupils do not like schoolmasters so out goes the word from modern versions. The Greekword for schoolmaster is paidagogos which gives us the English word pedagogue, which in ourmodern Oxford dictionary is defined as "schoolmaster"! We are told that the pedagogos was aslave responsible for the moral and physical well-being of the child and would lead him to andfrom school. J Hunter thought that "a strict governess" to be a suitable translation, thusintroducing a sex change. (What the Bible Teaches; 1983 Vol?, p.54). Commentators deny thesense of teaching in the word, preferring to rely on "classical" usages of the word, or on thepresumed practices of the Roman slave trade. Why not allow the Holy Spirit to interpret accordingto the context? Vine tells us that where paidagogos is translated "instructors", 1 Cor.4:15, itshould read "pastors". But surely even pastors teach when caring for the flock.Believing Bible study must begin with what we find written on the sacred page. We are not free toform our own opinions and then to look for the version that best expresses them. If we do not

understand a word, phrase, or passage, then we wait on the Lord until the Holy Spirit illuminesthe page. We do not adjust the text. that is what modern versionism is all about. The law was aschoolmaster, teaching the Israelite that he had a special relationship with God, separate fromthe ungodly nations surrounding him; that approach to God was on ceremonial grounds and thelaw taught him (if he would only listen) that he was a sinner. It was "till the seed should come", sobringing him to Christ.

Galatians 4: 4

67

67


14/40

God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

A few modern versions have born of a woman, born under law. Although there are 8000changes made in the Greek manuscripts, this verse stands firm in all. Every known Greekmanuscript has ginomai (=made). The change to born must be seen for what it is a directattack on the virgin birth.Whoever heard of a mortal man who was not born of a woman? This verse tells us of One whowas made without the assistance of man.The AV translators were well aware of the difference between made and born. We have only togo down to v.29 and we read he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was bornafter the Spirit. The Greek word for born is here gennao which emphasises the vital distinctionmade in v.4.Where natural birth is concerned we read of John the Baptist in Mtt.11:11, Among them that areborn (gennetos) of women there has not risen a greater.We note that not even Darby had born in Gal.4: 4. He wrote come of a woman. We also notethat the Douay Version retains made.

If ginomaimay be translated born then a blasphemy would be introduced at Galatians 3: 13,Christ.... being made (ginomai) a curse. (Born a curse)

This verse alone is sufficient to demolish the foetal implant theory, popularised by Henry Morrisand others. Morris has written:-

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are inheaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body inwhich He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body , however, could not be a bodyproduced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarredeither by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.....Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin'swomb. .... Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou preparedme" (Hebrews 10:5).

Morris believes that the physical body of Christ was fashioned in heaven and miraculouslytransplanted in the womb of Mary. Therefore the real humanity of Christ is removed.

We end with a quote from Gills commentary:

"made", not created as Adam was; nor begotten by man, as men in common are; nor is hesaid to be born, though he truly was, but "made"; which word the Holy Ghost chooses, toexpress the mighty power of God, in his mysterious incarnation, wonderful conception, andbirth. Gill

Galatians 4:10,11Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I havebestowed upon you labour in vain

A bible critic tells us, 'To contend for the AV no error' position seems to some to be untenable,unnecessary, and only plays into the hands of those who accuse us of AV-olatry, or naivity inthese matters'. It is apparently nave to believe that when I read Easter in Acts 12:4. it actuallymeans Easter. (see my notes above on Acts 12:4). This is the only example that the writer canproducea verse that we dealt with in Wavmarks No.8. The AV Translators must have beennave as well, even though they marked in the margin, 'Gk. as Mk.l4.l.&c.' i.e. the Greek wordmeans Passover. But v.3 shows that the Passover had gone and the days of unleavened breadwere in progress. Plainly the Greek word pascha was being used for Easter (there being no othersuitable word available) as well as for Passover. Hislop in his book The Two Baby!ons points outthat in the third or fourth centuries AD the festival now called Easter was then known as Pasch.We suspect that the reason for the modern objection to the word Easter in Acts is because of

68

68
http://www.icr.org/bible/Colossians/1:16http://www.icr.org/bible/Hebrews/10:5http://www.icr.org/bible/Hebrews/10:5http://www.icr.org/bible/Colossians/1:16


15/40

Herod's association with it and our modernist friends do not like the idea that their Easter isessentially the Babylonish festival of Astarte christianised. The Jews celebrated the Passover.Herod celebrated Easter. Those who celebrate so called Christian festivals need to take note ofPaul's words to the Galatians. Words that should have kept us away from any millennialcelebrations as well!It is not a matter of navety to believe the AV Bible is without error. Here is the age old inferencethat if one dares to disagree with those who like to appear learned then that proves one to be asimpleton. That is the line taken by most Bible critics. What else can the 'AV no error' critic comeup with? He joins all the Bible critics in his attitude, only he is more dangerous for he pretends tobe a friend of the AV whilst he attacks it. Let us know what these alleged errors are and we shallpatiently seek to show that the error is in the mind of the beholder only. But those who hold toerror are not usually willing to be taught, so we shall seek rather to. encourage the believer.It seems that the reason why we are expected to deny the perfection of the AV is that men couldnot produce a perfect Bible. They are but human. We wonder why it is that God gave His inspiredword to frail men in the first place if He were not competent to preserve it in later translations. Weare told that only the original Hebrew and Greek have claim to inspiration and preservation. Sothe editor of Bible League Quarterly, who insists in error in the AV does not believe the AV to bethe inspired word of God at all. Babel becomes a serious error on God's part for at Babel Godconfounded the language of all the earth and then found Himself unable to communicate fully withany except Hebrew/Greek speaking people. This is actually what our crafty scholars want us to

believe. If the modem ploughboy wants to understand the word of God he must go back to thescholar-priest, who can then explain away the precious truths of God by means of modemparodies of Scripture that bear little relation to the original Hebrew and Greek.The linguist will tell us that no language can be translated into another without some loss. Suchpeople reckon without God. With God all things are possible. I am satisfied that there was divineoverruling when the AV was produced, so it does not even matter if the translators themselvesdid not expect to produce a perfect work. We look back and we see that they did.We are also told that the AV is imperfect because we do not have the original manuscripts. Thisis even more an unreasonable view . Because the master copy is lost it does not follow at all thatextant copies of that master have to be imperfect. We take the same believing approach, that ourGod is faithful and nothing of His word has been lost. Not even when the master copy was made

2000 sears ago and multitudes of copies stand in between. God did not hand over thetransmission of Scripture to apostate and ignorant monks in their dismal cells. Godly believersmade their own copies carefully and reverently, knowing that they were handling the word of God.A few minutes after I was saved I bought my first Bible. It was an AV Bible, there not being muchelse available in 1955, and no other choices on that bookstall. I did not consider that it might beless than 100% the word of God in the English language. It never entered my head that theremight be blemishes in it. I believed it to be supernaturally provided in its content because I knewthe original had come that way. When men began to tell me there were faults in my Bible I wasupset but resolved that if I found any I would just have to accept them. I began that study manyyears ago and have found no error yet.The view that the AV is perfect is not for me solely a matter of faith but borne out of years ofresearch. There is a reasonable explanation for every alleged blemish. The view has not led meinto some extremist position as some would like to assert. I do not believe that the AV translators

were in any way themselves inspired. I do believe that their work was ordained of and overseenby God.I do believe therefore that the AV and not the original Hebrew/Greek Scriptures are the finalappeal, if for no other reason than that these latter Scriptures have long since been lost. Even ifthey still existed in pristine condition, they would not be my final court of appeal for another verysimple reason - 1 understand neither Hebrew nor Greek. They might be useful to the scholar inverifying that his English Bible is indeed the word of God but we must not lose sight of this factthat our English Bible is no less the inspired word of God than that which first came by means ofprophet's or apostle's pen. I don't need a cleric to tell me what is Bible and what is blemish. Mineis no novel view.

69

69


16/40

It is thought by some that ascribing perfection to a translation is a recent view. We can show thatit isn't.John Urquhart wrote in 1895, 'The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, in a unitedprotest addressed to Bishop Colenso, in 1863, said All our hopes for eternity, the very foundationof our faith, our nearest and dearest consolations, are taken from us, if one line of that SacredBook be declared unfaithful or untrustworthy.If any further confirmation is needed that this has long been the customary view of the Bible, itwill be found in the confessions of those who attack the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. They speakof it as 'the ordinary view.' When they attack it, and endeavour to show that it is overthrown by thealleged existence of errors in the Bible, they are perfectly aware that they are saying or writingwhat will offend the vast majority of Christian people.the Bible is, from beginning to end, thefaultless Word of the faultless God. -The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures.The Bishops made their statement before the RV was thrust upon them. How fickle men are, butthe common view of the time is established, it might be argued that Urquhart was writing againstthe Higher Critic and was not referring to the textual changes made by the Lower Critics that wereushered in with the RV. But error is error and if the Bible needs textual amendments it couldhardly be spoken of as faultless.About 100 years ago(?) Gaussen wrote, 'The question has been put, is the Bible inspired, even in

its language? We have affirmed that it is. In other words,.the question has been put, Have themen of God given us the Scriptures exempt from error, great or small, positive or negative? Wehave affirmed that they have.'- The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.Gaussen was not referrng to the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, but to the English Bible. The men ofGod were the translators. Gaussen made that plain earlier in his book when he wrote, 'if [thewriter of the autograph] has made a mistake, his blunder is for ever irreparable; it must last longerthan heaven and earth, it has blemished the eternal book remedilessly. and nobody on earth cancorrect it;-it is quite otherwise with translators. These on the contrary have always the divine textat hand, so as to be corrected and re-corrected, according to the eternal type, until they havebecome the exact counterpart of it. The inspired word leaves us not; we need not to go in searchof it to the third heaven; it is still upon the earth, just as God first dictated it to us.'Where is this exact counterpart if it is not the AV? Certainly not in any modem version. The view

that the Scriptures are imperfect in all but their original form is not a novel view. This doctrine wasfirst set forth in the Garden of Eden when Satan said to Eve, 'hath God said?' implying that Evehadn't got the message quite right.The insinuations that some alleged supporters of the AV are making against the AV aredetrimental to the faith. If it is imperfect, as they say, then those imperfections cannot be theinspired words of God. The ordinary believer, not being a scholar, cannot tell what is animperfection and what is not, so he must be suspicious of the whole. We note the words of JackMoorman, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and saythis is the preserved word of God, then it is sin, if we do not approach the study of how we got ourBible from the standpoint of faith, then it is sin, if I cannot believe what God says about thepreservation of His Word, then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either - all issin.'-Forever Settled: a survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.

Galatians 5: 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication,uncleanness, lasciviousness,

We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern versions, from the RV onwards.Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after hisneighbours wife. (Jer. 5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom.The NIV reads, The acts of the sinful nature are obvious which is very vague for whatsoever isnot of faith is sin.

70

70


17/40

moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three ofthe Fathers.Ephesians 1:18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.Modern versions change this to " the eyes of your heart." We are not surprised to learn that theyused the depraved Greek Texts, Aleph, A, B, D as the authority for this change. The AV readingis taken from the Received Text which supplies the Greek word dianoia (dianoya) =mind orunderstanding.J. Moorman (quoting from Vincent's Word Studies) points out that, ' "the eyes of the heart" occursnowhere else in Scripture, neither does it set well with Scriptural truth, and probably comes fromthe heathen philosophers. Plato spoke about the "eyes of the soul"; and Ovid, speaking ofPythagoras said: "with his mind he approached the gods, though far removed from heaven, andwhat nature denied to human sight, he drew forth with the eyes of his heart."' -When the KJVDeparts from the Majority Text.What a pity that our "scholars" seem to prefer the works of heathen philosophers to what theSpirit of God has supplied. A. Leckie, once esteemed among us, wrote " the weight of authorityfavours 'heart' and not 'understanding'. What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? In this he was totally

mistaken. The weight of authority lies with the Received Text. Leckie followed Darby's translation.Today hardly any Bible Teacher among the "brethren" follows the AV 100%.Ephesians 3: 14For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father. RV.Modern versions almost without exception (ASV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc., etc. ) follow the Westcottand Hort Greek text and omit of our Lord Jesus Christ. JND places them in italics, regardingthem as dubious. The NKJV keeps them.

The majority of manuscripts support the AV reading and a few Alexandrian omit. The deliberateomission is an attack

Ephesians 4:22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,It is thought by some that this is a mistranslation and the verse ought to be translated ye have

put off. The reason for this misunderstanding is because we read in Col.3:9, seeing that yehave put off the old man. This appears to be a contradiction in the minds of those who have notconsidered the passages carefully.They argue, how can there be an injunction to "put off the old man" if the saints have alreadydone so?Beloved, just read the context of Eph 4. Paul is writing concerning what the Ephesian saints havealready learned. If they have learned of Christ, and heard him, and have been taught by Him,

then they learned this, and they learned it from the beginning, that the old man is to be put off. Itis to be done at conversion. It is what all true believers do when they come to know Christ. So theEphesians had been taught "Put off the old man!" That is what Paul is reminding them of in thispassage. There is no place for "old man" characteristics in the life of the believer. He hasdiscarded the old man and has put on the new man.Paul reminds the Colossian saints that they (all of them) have put off the old man. He is not tellingthem that if they haven't done it then it is about time they did do it. The new man cannot be put onuntil the old man is discarded. The person not adorned in the new man is unconverted and hell-bound.

71

71


18/40

So where have our translators gone astray? They understood the Scriptures even if our modernpreachers don't. The AV translation is grammatically as well as doctrinally correct. JND'stranslation ye have heard himand been instructed. (namely) your having put off.the oldman changes the meaning of the passage. It would suggest that they had been taught that theyhad put off the old man. They didn't know they had put off the old man until they had beeninstructed that they had.This kind of Scripture mutilation allows for the catechisms of Christendom that tell people thatthey are what they are not. I have a certificate that tells me that as an infant I became a child ofGod because I had some water sprinkled on my face. I didn't know anything about it until mymother told me many years later. Darby himself rejected the Scripture's teaching on the baptismof believerPhil.2:5,6,7Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and wasmade in the likeness of men.

This statement has been a veritable battleground from the beginning. Mistranslation and

misapplication has led to the KENOSIS THEORY, in which the Lord is alleged to have emptiedHimself of His glory in His incarnation and subjected Himself to human limitations, ceasing to beomniscient. The subject has been fully dealt with by competent believing scholars so mycomments here need be only brief.First, we note how the passage has been falsified in the NIV.- Christ Jesus: Who, being in verynature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himselfnothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.Nature and form are not the same. I might have the same nature as my mother but my form isnot identical. The AV Bible speaks of an existing equality in the Godhead which was notsurrendered in incarnation. The form of God is manifested in the form of a servant. The Scripturedoes not suggest that Christ relinquished the form of God.

The NIV does suggest that Christ released His grasp on His divine attributes (nature) andbecame NOTHING, displaying the attributes of a servant, without becoming in very being (form) aservant.Following modern versions, we see, will lead us into very seriousand blasphemouserror.Many years ago, at the end of the breaking of bread meeting, a man rose to give ministry in whichhe told us that the Lord, while on earth was in essence less than God. We could not continue infellowship with such a man of course. And now we read in The Bible League Quarterly, Jan-Mar.2000, p.147, "as to His essential nature, He always was and never has ceased to be equal withGod. But where would any of us be now, if He had demanded to remain on equality with God inposition and role, instead of humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant and obedientlysubmitting to God as His Head?" - Prof. David Gooding.

Gooding tells us that the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3 expresses inequality. He tells us thatin not demanding to remain on equality something had to be surrendered. That in subjectingHimself to the authority of the Father in His incarnation, He took up an inferior role and position.Christ was on earth what He was in heaven. There was no loss of deity in any respect in Hiscoming to earth There was gain, in that He came to possess a human natureone that could notbe tarnished by sin- and was seen in the likeness of sinful flesh. Being of no reputation did notproduce inequality in the Godhead.The continuing equality of the Son of God is expressed in the words of Col.1:19, For it pleased

72

72


19/40

the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. Also we note Col.2:9, For in him dwelleth all thefulness of the Godhead bodily. Whatever the quality or attribute pertaining to the Godhead, it wasfound in Christ.Philippians 3:16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mindthe same thing.The words ...rule, let us mind the same thing (kanoni, to auto fronein), were wrested from theGreek N T by Greisbach in 1805. This error was very quickly exposed by Fred. Nolan in 1815. Hewrote, the following [list of omitted texts] may be restored to the sacred text on the testimony ofthe annexed authorities: ...Phil.3:16 Byz. Syr. 1 .It. 3. Arab.These authorities are the earliest versions (=translations) of the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin,and Arabic. Believers dispersed throughout Europe, Byzantium, North Africa had a Bible with anidentical text though in their own language. They kept to the same rule (canon); they were all ofthe same mind. What they had attained to, they kept. If ignorant men ask where the Bible was tobe found prior to 1611, they have the answer here. It was in the hands of believers throughout theinhabited world. It was a Bible with which our English AV Bible is in full agreement, ours beingbased on the Received Text, referred to by some as the Byzantine text.Whereto we have already attained is the Apostles Doctrine. We do not need the creeds of men

while we have a reliable Bible. Men such as Origen, Augustine, Greisbach, Westcott, Hort,Nestle, were never happy with the Apostles Doctrine. They did not wish to walk by the same rule.So they simply cut it out. Thus we read in the NIV etc. Only let us live up to what we havealready attained. No common rule and no united mind. Unwary readers of modern versions willbe unaware that they are reading seriously mutilated perversions of Scripture. The critics do notusually indicate what they have done.Walking by the same rule must mean having a common definitive Bible. The proliferation ofversions is a denial of this verse of Scripture and demands its removal. We have a God givenstandard Bible in the English tongue, in full agreement with the Bible of the first generation ofChristians, which is known as the Authorized Version. It has a proven pedigree.

Phillipians 3: 20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord

Jesus Christ.

Conversation is translated frompoliteuma, which word occurs only here in the N. T. In mostmodern versions it is translated citizenship but this is not the true meaning of the word.In Phil. 1: 27politeuomaiis used, again translated conversation in the AV Bible. It speaks of thebehaviour of one living in accord with the gospel of Christ. Our conduct, our behaviour, is nottherefore in the manner of earth-dwellers, but our behaviour is what belongs in heaven. As it is inheaven, so let it be on earth.The word citizenship is insufficient here. There are many who hold full UK citizenship, but theirbehaviour is unacceptable to UK society. Theirs is not conversation; theirs is malversation whichmeans misbehaviour or corruption.

Phil. 3:21

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,The word vile has lost its primary meaning of being of small account, and now refers to thingsdisgusting. It is language itself that has become debased. We do not rely on modern dictionariesfor definitions of Bible words, nor are we compelled to turn to Greek lexicons. Scripture is its owninterpreter. We learn what is meant by vile when we read Luke 1: 48, For he hath regarded thelow estate of his handmaiden. We read of the discreet definition of the humanity of Christ in Acts8: 33, In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. So we do not need to change the word inour Bible. We understand it, even though the word humiliation has come to mean somethingshameful; injurious to self respect. In the seventeenth century humiliation meant the abasement

73

73


20/40

of pride. The only other place this word is used is in James 1: 10. But the rich in that he is madelow.Of course, we do not despise Greek lexicons. The Greek word used in the above four verses istapeinosis.

Colossians 1: 14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.The NIV reads In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Blood is omitted on thegrounds that Westcott and Horts Greek Text omits it.Wycliffe, in 1380 AD omitted the blood. He wrote in whom we han a3enbiyng and remyssioun ofsynnes. He had only Jeromes Latin Vulgate to work on, so he didnt know it should be included.Yet the Latin Vulgate of Sixti V. and Clementis VIII has in quo habemus redemptionem persanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum.(In whom we have redemption through his blood, theforgiveness of sins).Tyndale has blood in Col.1: 14. There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

Colossians 2: 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead ( theotes) bodily.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. NRSV, ESV

Godhead is mentioned three times in the AV Bible, theios in Acts 17: 29, theiotes (derived fromtheios) in Romans 1:20 and theotes in Colossians 2: 9. It is missing from modern versions.The Godhead is a term applying solely the Triune God and all that consists in the Godhead isfound equally and completely in the person of Christ Jesus the LordThe word deity does not appear in the AV Bible. It is a loose term for divine being orsupernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life orwho is the personification of a force Websters Revised unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998MICRA, Inc.

The undiscerning might think that little meaning is lost in the two modern versions quoted but theyare false. The god of Modern Versionism is not the True and Living God of the Holy Bible.

Colossians 3: 6For which things sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.

Because of these, the wrath of God is coming NIVOn account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. NRSV

The children of disobedience is a specific class of people. They are elsewhere described asungodly (for whom Christ died). They are the unconverted; without eternal life; perishing. The NIVassumes no distinction between the saved and the lost.

1 Thessalonians 2: 14 (See also 1 Cor. 4: 16)

For ye, brethren, became followers ( mimetes) of the churches of God....

All modern versions translate mimetes as imitators. Those who merely imitate the churches ofGod might be regarded as cults or sects. They are obviously not the genuine article. Those whofollow have in mind the example and testimony of the one they seek to follow.

1 Thes. 4: 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will

74

74


21/40

God bring with him.W E Vine tells usthe margin, through is correct; the preposition dia is not elsewhere translated in,and cannot bear that meaning. Moreover, while the phrase in Christ is frequently used by theApostle to express the intimacy of the relation between the believer and the Risen Lord, believersare never said to be in Jesus, see notes on 1:1.What a pity that Vine didnt think of looking in Newberrys Bible. He would have been saved fromthis miserable faux pas.The other verses where dia is translated in are:-Matt. 26: 61 This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in (dia) threedays. (Newberry missed this one.)1 Tim. 2: 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (dia) childbearing.Heb. 7: 9 Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in(dia) Abraham.Heb. 13: 12 suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in (dia) few words.2 Peter 3: 5 by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the waterand in(dia)the water:

Vines statement is therefore false on three counts. The preposition dia IS elsewhere translatedin. It CAN bear that meaning, as the verses above show us, and believers ARE said to be inJesus as 1 Thes. 4: 14 accurately and faithfully assures us.Shall I believe Vine or shall I believe my Bible? This really is the issue that has to be faced. Ourbrethren are awed by scholarship. It has been placed on the highest pedestal of idolatry. But inthe case before us we see that scholarship had gone into hiding. Vine was a great scholar buthere he was relying on his own intellect and simply had not done his homework.

As far as them that sleep in Jesus is concerned, our critics immediately fly at us with the questionwell then, what does it mean if it does not mean through Jesus. The question tells us a littlemore about our critics. They have their theology and the Bible must fit round it.Our first answer is we accept the written word of God whether we understand it or not. If thewords do not make sense to us we have to confess that it is due to a lack of sense on our part

and not due to a lack in the word of God.

The statement If we believe that Jesus died and rose again brings the Man before us. Hishumanity is in view. It is not here that Christ died and rose again. This truth is expressed in 1 Cor.15. In 1 Thess. It is the Man Jesus who died and rose again.Believers who die before the Rapture are now said to be asleep (this does not imply a state oflimbo) and those who sleep are sleeping IN Jesus. They must therefore be brought with Him inthat day for it is Jesus Who died and rose and is coming again.When we get to v16 it is the Lord Who is spoken of and so we read of the dead in Christ.The moral is DONT TRUST THE SCHOLARS. READ YOUR OWN BIBLE.

1 Thes. 5: 22

Abstain from all appearance of evil.Modern versions read, abstain from every form of evil. While we should certainly do this, it is notwhat the Scripture says here. There are several Greek words translated form in the AV Bibleand eidos (appearance) is not one of them. It is not merely abstaining from all different types ofevil. It is that which has the external show or semblance of evil that must be avoided.

2 Thes.2:2..the day of Christ is at hand.

75

75


22/40

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable inrelation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscriptevidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ".Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are

known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" *. So let us believe what the Bible says and

admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonianshad no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ".The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew itwould come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) Theyknew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) andthat it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" meansthat), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the false teachingthey were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Dayhad come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture thatmen would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilateseven this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what everymodern version is about.*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts

to haveKyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.

For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

1 Timothy 1: 11 see 2 Cor.4: 41 Timothy 1:17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory forever and ever. Amen.A writer tells us that "The word 'wise' is best omitted from the text since Paul is emphasising thatGod is the only God." We infer from that statement that Timothy might have thought there wereother Gods but needed to be reassured that there was only one wise one. So the word 'wise'

must be excised from Scripture and Paul was very unwise to have put it in his letter. We havescholars today who are a cut above the apostleswhich seems to be the reasoning of some ofour brethren today.But wait a moment cry the critics, Paul couldn't have written 'wise', because he had alreadydone that at the end of Romans and you could hardly have him repeating himself. Some stupidcopyist must have thought it nice to include it at this point. So, we read elsewhere, "MSS supportis weak for 'wise' and RV and JND omit it." What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? John Ritchie.I counted 14 listed mss, plus a handful of cursives that support the omission (Early Manuscriptsand the Authorized Version; J.Moorman). But there are 15 listed mss plus THOUSANDS ofcursives that include 'wise'. So the vast majority is pitted against the two wise gods RV and JND,(which remain unread and unknown by the vast majority of believers).

Further, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzen both quote 'the only wise God'. No, theydidn't themselves put it in; G. of Nyssa was quoting it in refuting the error of Eunomius.The statement 'MSS [it should be MS] support is weak ', is seen then as a lie. It is a lieperpetuated by a reliance on the false gods of textual criticism.1 Timothy 2: 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Some are telling us that this verse could be translated from the Greek to read But I suffer not awife to teach nor to usurp authority over her husband.

76

76


23/40

A correspondent (seeking to promote a book Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women) writes togive assurance that this is the correct translation. He knows because as a Classics graduate,[he] can vouch for the accuracy of the exposition of the key passages from the Greek NewTestament. The verse here in question is one such passage.How does my correspondents erudition compare to that of John Spenser? This man was chosenFellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford in 1579. He had been elected Greek lecturer at thiscollege at the age of nineteen. McClure wrote of his eminent scholarship there can be no doubt.(The Translators Revived) .It was Spenser and his team who translated gun in this verse as a woman. He thereby was inagreement with Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, Even the Rheims translation has womanModern Versions such as the RV, NIV, ESV all have woman as do the more way out versions,Gods Word, the Message. I havent found a version reading wife.

We need hardly point out that the AV translators were well aware that gun may be alsotranslated wife.The context decides whether woman or wife is required. Therefore one does not require thehelp of Dr Modern Apostate Scholar in fixing the reading. Confidence and faith in the God givenEnglish Bible is all that is needed for an understanding.her husband is an interpretation and not a translation. There is no possessive pronoun her inthe Greek Text.

We must beware those who consider themselves to be cleverer than the Book.

1 Timothy 3: 1This is a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.W E Vine assures us there is no mention of an office in the original.Literally the phrase isseeketh overseership. But this IS the office overseership. Office of a bishop represents justone Greek word; episkopee. It is twice translated visitation (Luke 19: 44, 1 Peter 2: 12), andonce bishopric.This phrase is the stumbling block of the Brethren, who are fearful of anything connected witheccliasticism. It is one of the reasons why our leading brethren reject the Authorized Version ofHoly Scripture.Their rejection is based on two misunderstandings,

1.The AV translators had to preserve all eccliastical terms. They did not do so in Acts 20:28, theHoly Ghost hath made you overseers. The translators went for accuracy.2. The word office is taken to mean rank or position. But the primary meaning of the word isanything done for another; service. (Webster) which is what we have in this verse.The NIV reads, if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer. This is a mistranslation, shiftingthe emphasis from the work to the person. The AV reading does not do this.1 Timothy 3:16God was manifest in the flesh.All believers ought to be aware that "He who was manifest in the flesh" is a spurious reading. Yetwe find this being presented as "perhaps better" in a Christian magazine freely circulated amongus. One dislikes being for ever critical but when our brethren set themselves up as critics of the

text they must not complain at some return. The traditional reading is not peculiar to the AV Bible.It is found in Tyndale's translation, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible."God" is also found in the major European Bibles of Diotati (Italian), Osterwald (French), Valera(Spanish), Luther (German), Almeida (Portuguese), and many others. The vast majority ofexisting Greek mss. have the word for God. The ancient versions likewise, e.g. Old Latin, LatinVulgate, Gothic, and more besides. Several of the Fathers refer to God manifest in the flesh. Afew mss. have the equivalent of "who" or "which". The Codex Alexandricus, held in the BritishMuseum, appears to have been altered at this verse but the scholars who were able to examine itwere in agreement that the original text read THEOS, agreeing with the Received Text, God wasmanifest in the flesh. (See TBS leaflet No.103).

77

77


24/40

Why do we read then in Present Truth, N0.90, p.93, "Microscopic examination of the earliest textswere universally in favour of the [who] reading". (my italics). It appears that the proven God-breathed words God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit upset the theology of some.The writer goes on to ask "How do we understand God justified in spirit?" (sic). To believe thatthe actual text of Scripture depends on our understanding of it is rationalism. Has one never readJohn 1:32-34? I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.... andI saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God. Not the title Christ, nor the Lamb of God, butthat which speaks of His full and absolute Godhood, The Son of God, is used by John, by whichhe gave public testimony to this fact, that God was now manifest in the flesh, justified as such bythe visitation of the Holy Spirit.Our writer goes on, "why is there little evidence of this Scripture [God was....] being used in thecontroversies of the early centuries.... Surely this Scripture would have been an end to allargument". To which the answer may be given,- why do not the modern counterparts of the oldheretics, the Unitarians, RC's, JW's slink away when confronted with the truth? Because theyreject the truth out of hand, and will not listen to it, preferring their Unitarian NIV bibles etc.One other thing our writer cannot understand is "God received up in glory". Christ yes, he says,but God no. He hastens to assure us that he does not doubt the divinity of Christ, but we arebeginning to wonder. The old lie is that Christ ceased to be possessed of deity at the cross. But,

But He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, Mark 16:19. Who is thisthat Mark speaks of? Christ, certainly, but we have further titles of deity given - The LORD saidunto my Lord (Adon=Sovereign God), sit thou at my right hand. Psalm 110:1. How can He beGod manifested in the flesh during His life here, and God in exaltation at the right hand of theFather, but not God during His ascension?

1 Timothy 6: 10For the love of money is the root of all evil.The ESV makes it indefinite and plural: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. TheNKJV (which we are assured merely updates the language of the AV) changes the meaning alsoby reading, For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Darby also wasnt able to see evilas a single entity, for he made it read, For the love of money is [the] root of every evil. He

bracketed the because he thought there were other roots (of evil). His footnote reads There isno article in the Greek. It is not that there is no other root, but the love of money is characterisedby being such. If there are other roots of evil, the Scripture doesnt tell us of them.Evil is the generic term for all that is not good ( see Ecc.12:14, Rom.7:19, 9: 11). There are notdifferent kinds of evils.

1 Timothy 6: 20O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Modern versions shy away from science. They prefer to call it falsely called knowledge (NRSV)and make it a mere contradiction and not an opposition which is open hostility to the truth.Christians are not opposed to true science. But evolutionism is not true science though

evolutionists like to regard it as such. Textual Criticism is not true science either. We note thatscience disappeared from modern versions at the same time these false sciences began toappear.

2 Timothy 2: 15Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,rightly dividing the word of truth.This verse is quoted in Counsel, No.33, vol. 6 (Nov-Dec 2003), where it is given as Do your best

78

78


25/40

to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightlyhanding [sic] the Word of truth. This reading is attributed to the R V.The first thing we notice is that this verse is not found thus in the R.V.The R.V. reading is Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman thatneedeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.The N.I. V. has Do your best to present yourself.....who correctly handles the word of truth.The T.E.V. has Do your best to win full approval...one who correctly teaches the message ofGods truth.But God does not ask us to do our best. Our best can never be good enough for God. We arecommanded to study and liberal neo-evangelicals do not like to. The standard set in 2 Tim. 2: 15is what God expects the believer to attain to. My best may leave me very short of it. Study is agood word and adequately translates spoudazo, being the application of the mind to the subjectin hand.

2 Timothy 2:21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour.Peter Caws wrote,Darby was preoccupied with purity of doctrine as a legal matter, and was obsessed with the idea

of separation. So much so, that he actually invented and introduced into his translation of theScriptures a gloss on 2 Timothy 2:21 that is not required by the Greek. The words in separatinghimself from them, appears in brackets but have been accorded the status of the inspiredWord. Belief and morals among the Taylorites; Evangelical Times; Oct.2000.

Darbys verse reads, If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, [in separatinghimself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour.The introduction to JNDs translation tells us that square brackets in the text (as in the versequoted) indicate (a) words added to complete the sense in English similar to those shown initalics in the Authorized Version; or (b) words as to which there are variations in the originalmanuscripts.There are no variations relating to the statement in this verse, so (a) applies. But Darby has donemore than give the sense. As Caws rightly points out, the words have been added to the page of

Scripture, and not supplied as a footnote so therefore they have been accorded the status of theinspired Word.The phrase, if a man therefore purge himself from these carries the sense of the Greek fully. Inthe context Paul is calling for a complete separation not only from evil things but from evil men.Darby was right, doctrinally, in his addition, but very wrong to place it upon the page of what hewould have to be Scripture. He is wrong also to change the verb from purge to purified, whichweakens the sense of the statement. Darby also changes the tense without warrant.Separation is a vital doctrine of Scripture but Darby set the pattern which would lea