Calvinism and the King James Bible

[brandplucked]

Calvinism and the King James Bible

I Timothy 2:3-5

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who WILL HAVE all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Much of modern Christianity pictures God as a grandfatherly figure wishing so badly that his errant creatures would heed his pleadings and decide of their own free will to choose to believe and cast their vote for God. For those of us who have been granted by our gracious Lord to see the great truths of election and sovereign grace, we should be greatly concerned to see how many of these truths have been diluted in the new bible versions.

Comparing scripture with scripture we see that the phrase "all men" refers to both Jews and Gentiles. It means all categories of men, not all men without exception. The Arminian view always proves too much. There were multitudes of men who were already lost and in hell when Christ died. So does "all men" include those who had perished in their sins before Christ came to this earth?

In the Old Testament God chose only the nation of Israel to be his people. "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Deut. 14:2. But now the Messiah has come to be the Saviour of His people which are taken out out every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue. "God did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name." Acts 15:14.

Even in the Old Testament times a Gentile could come to Israel and learn of the true God. Notice carefully the expression used in Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple in I Kings 8:41-43: "Morover concerning A STRANGER, that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name's sake; (For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm when HE shall come and pray toward this house; Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and do according to all that THE STRANGER calleth to thee for; that ALL PEOPLE of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people of Israel."

Observe that this prayer refers to one Gentile who comes to pray to the true God. "All people of the earth" therefore does not mean every individual but all men without distinction of nationality, be they a Jew or a Gentile. Again in Isaiah 56: 6, 7 it says: "Also the sons of the stranger (Gentiles) that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD...Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer...for mine house shall be called an house of prayer FOR ALL PEOPLE." Obviously this does not mean every individual without exception will join himself to the LORD, but all without distinction of nationality.

When the apostle Paul relates his conversion experience we can see how this same thought is expressed. In Acts 9:15 the Lord tells Ananias concerning Paul: "But the Lord said, Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." Yet in Acts 22:14, 15 Paul himself tells us that Ananias came to him: "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shoudest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto ALL MEN of what thou hast seen and heard." Do you see it? All men = the Gentiles, kings and the children of Israel. All men without distinction of nationality or social standing. Obviously Paul did not speak to Noah's sons, the Cherokee indians, Genghis Khan or Bill Gates.

At the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the devout Simeon came by the Spirit into the temple, took up the babe in his arms and said: "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of ALL PEOPLE; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Obviously not every individual Gentile or Jew would be lightened by this salvation, but the Messiah will save all people without distinction of nationality, not all people without exception.

This is why Paul continues in I Timothy with these significant words. In verses 6 and 7 he says: "Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." Why does he say he is not lying but telling the truth that he was a preacher and teacher of the Gentiles? Because now in the New Testament dispensation Christ, the Jewish Messiah, is gathering from the heathen Gentiles a people for his name and together the elect Jews and the elect Gentiles are what make up the "all men".

This is a consistent, biblically defined use of the term "all men" or "all people". The "all men" is not the problem with the modern versions, but the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB have all translated the verb "to will" in such a way as to create a direct contradiction with several other verses and contribute to the pathetic god image so common today.

The King James Bible, as well as Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, even Wesley's 1755 translation, Young's, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st century KJV all correctly translate God " WILL HAVE all men to be saved", or "wills" all men to be saved. The verb is thelo and, when used of God, means to will to do something and since He rules over all, what He wills He does.

The NKJV, ESV and NASB say God "DESIRES all men to be saved " while the NIV, ISV, Holman Standard say he "WANTS all men to be saved". This rendering contradicts passages where this same verb or noun form is used in referrence to God.

He "worketh all things after the counsel of HIS OWN WILL" Ephesians 1:11; "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth WHOM HE WILL" John 5:21; and in Romans 9:16 - 18 we read: "So then it is NOT of him that WILLETH, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Therefore hath he mercy on whom HE WILL have mercy, and whom HE WILL he hardeneth." Again with a different word but with the same thought is James 1:18 "OF HIS OWN WILL begat he us with the word of truth."

The new versions portray a schizophrenic god who on the one hand desires or wants to save everybody, and yet a God Who in fact saves whom He wills.

More to come,

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Respecter of Persons

There is a subtle twisting of God's inspired words taking place in many modern versions in how they are rendering the phrase "respecteth not persons". This is so subtle, that I believe most Christians have not noticed it. The change in meaning produced by versions like the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB unfortunately fits in with so much of modern, popular theology, that many would actually consider it to be an improvement over the KJB's reading. It fits the philosophy of the natural mind of man.

The concept that "God has created all men equal" does not come from the Holy Bible. God obviously has not created all men equal, nor does He deal with every single individual or nation in what seems to us as a fair and impartial manner. Many have become so influenced in their thinking by the reasoning of the world, that they cannot discern this obvious truth.

God has created, formed and made each of us. Yet He has not given to all equal intelligence, good looks, physical skills, nor spiritual gifts. "He divideth to every man severally as He will." Exodus 4:11 tells us "And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?".

Not all are born in a country which even has the word of God in its culture, or where it would be openly taught and encouraged. Psalm 147:19,20 "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." Some are born in abject poverty, disease and ignorance, while others are blessed with abundant crops, education and families that care for them. "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all." Proverbs 22:2.

The phrase "to accept the persons of men" or "to respect persons" does not mean, as the modern versions have translated it, "to show partiality" or "to show favoritism". One of the chief arguments of the Arminian side against the doctrine of election is: "God does not show partiality or favoritism, so election cannot be true." The new bibles are reinforcing this fallacious argument.

Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. Daniel Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "respecter of persons" as a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his judgment, and suffers his opinions to be biased by them. God's dealings with a man are not based on outward appearance, position, rank, wealth or nationality. Rather, His own sovereign purpose and pleasure of His will are the only deciding factors.

We are told in Deuteronomy 7:6-8 "For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people: for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you". Deuteronomy 10: 14-17 "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." Verse 17 "For the LORD thy God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here both election and not regarding persons are used in the same context.

God says He chose only the fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and their seed to be His people, and not the others. That He "REGARDETH NOT PERSONS" means that He does this, not on the basis of their nationality, nor their good moral character (for they were a stiffnecked and rebellious people), but because is was His good pleasure to do so. Other Bibles that agree with the KJB here are Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham's 1902, the JPS 1917 Jewish Bible, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Youngs, Darbys, the Spanish versions and Websters Bible. However the NKJV, NIV and NASB have "shows no partiality". If God chose Israel to be His people, and not the others, is not this showing partiality?

Deut. 14:1,2 "Ye are the children of the LORD your God...and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." Why did not God choose the other nations to be his children and to know his laws? Isn't this showing partiality or favoritism?

One verse among the hundreds that have been messed up by the NKJV, NIV and NASB is 2 Samuel 14:14. Here Joab saw that king David's heart was toward his son Absalom. So Joab sends a wise woman to speak to the king. In verse 14 she says: "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again: NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." In other words, we all must die, whether rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, man or woman, king or servant; God does not look at our social station and on this basis exclude some from death.

Agreeing with the King James reading here are the 1917 Hebrew English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, Websters Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras. But many bibles, including the NKJV, NIV and NASB have the ridiculous reading of "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE", instead of "neither doth God respect any person". This is a lie and a contradiction. In this very book in chapter 12:15 "the LORD struck the child" of David and Bathsheeba and it died. In I Sam. 2:6 we are told "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up", and in Deuteronomy 32:39 God says "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."

It is not that the Hebrew will not allow the meaning found in the KJB, that the NKJV, NIV and NASB have so badly mistranslated 2 Samuel 14:14. They all likewise have translated these same words in other places as they stand in the KJB and others.

The phrase "no respecter of persons" is found six times in the New Testament, and every time the modern versions have distorted the true meaning. Romans 2:11, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, James 2:1 and 9, and Acts 10:34. In each case it has to do with not receiving the face, outward position, nationality or social rank of another. But God does not treat all people the same, nor are we told to do so either. We are to withdraw from some, avoid, exclude, reject, seperate from, and not cast our pearls before others. Most importantly, God Himself chose His elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world and "of the SAME LUMP" makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour - Romans 9:21. This is definitely showing partiality, but it is not respecting persons.

Romans 2:11 says "For there is no respect of persons with God." So also read the ASV, Geneva, Revised Version, Spanish "acepción de personas", Lamsa, Webster's, 21st Century KJB, TMB, and the KJB II of Green. Young's says there is no "acceptance of faces". But the NKJV, NASB say "no partiality" and the NIV says "not show favoritism". The Worldwide English N.T. says: "God does not love some people more than others". Yet this very book declares in Romans 9 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth...Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated...I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy...So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth."

Please consider the true meaning of the phrase "no respecter of persons" and contrast it with the modern rendering. I hope you will see that it is not the same at all. Only the KJB contains the whole truth of the counsel of God.

More to come, Lord willing,

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Faith is a gift from God.

Faith or belief is a gift from God. Faith is not something we can produce on our own. God has to give it to us. Those who are not His sheep do not believe because they are not His sheep. John 10:26. Jesus said to the Pharisees "But ye believe not, BECAUSE ye are not my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."

The reason you and I believe the gospel is because God Himself gives us faith. Romans 12:3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as GOD HATH DEALT TO EVERY MAN THE MEASURE OF FAITH."

The "every man" in the context is the "every man among you" or those who are already Christians. Not everyone has faith. 2 Thes.3:2 "for all men have not faith" and obviously there are unbelievers.

Phil. 1:29 "For unto you IT IS GIVEN in the behalf of Christ, not only TO BELIEVE ON HIM, but also to suffer for his sake."

Eph. 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD."

Eph. 1:19 "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward that believe, according to the working of his mighty power" Tyndale and Geneva Bibles note that Faith is the work of God only, even as the raising up of Christ. The same power that raised up Christ, is the power of God that causes us to believe the gospel. This truth has been obscured in the NASB and NIV. They both add words not found in any Greek text and change the meaning of the passage.

The NASB says: " and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. THESE ARE in accordance with the working of the strength of His might..."

The NIV has: "and his incomparably great power for us who believe. THAT POWER is like the working of his mighty strength..."

Scripture speaks of "the faith of God's elect" Titus 1:1

We are told that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith - Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith."

Acts 3:16 "yea, the faith which is by him (not just 'in' him, but BY Him) hath given him this perfect soundness "

Acts 18:27 "he helped them much which had believed THROUGH GRACE." It wasn't just that they believed "in" grace, by it was 'through grace' that they believed.

Acts 14:27 "they rehearsed all that God had done among them, and how He had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." If God doesn't open the door, there is no faith.

Acts 16:14 "Lydia...whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of by Paul"

Acts 15:9 "and put no difference between us (believing Jews) and them (believing Gentiles) purifying their hearts by faith." God purified their hearts by faith, not 'because of' faith. God did it and He did it by faith which He himself gave them. It was not "their part".

Acts 13:48 "and AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED." Their having been ordained to eternal life preceeded their believing. The reason they believed is because God had ordained them to faith in the gospel.

1 Peter 1:21 "Who by Him believe in God that raised him up from the dead" Again, it is BY HIM that we believe in God.

2 Peter 1:1 "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ".

They obtained this faith, they did not have it to begin with and then did their part to exercise it.

1 Cor. 12:9 "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom... to another faith by the same Spirit."

Gal. 5:22 one of the parts of the fruit of the Spirit is faith. The Spirit produces faith, but the new versions like the NKJV, NIV and NASB have changed this to 'faithfulness'.

1 Cor. 3:5-6 "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." You can preach and teach gospel truths, but unless God Himself gives the increase and causes the seed to sprout and grow, there is no belief and no life.

The NASB & NIV have both changed the meaning of this section, added words not in any text, and don't even agree with each other.The NASB says: "through whom you believed, even as the Lord GAVE OPPORTUNITY to each one." This fallacious reading pictures God as giving the opportunity to believe, as though faith comes from us. This fits with today's Arminian theology.

The NIV, on the other hand, differs from them all and says: "only servants, through whom you believed ---as the Lord HAS ASSIGNED TO EACH HIS TASK." The NIV's focus is not on the believing being from God, but on the task God gave to Paul and Apollos.

The Faith OF Jesus Christ

One of the many serious changes being made in the modern bible versions is how they are altering the phrase "the faith OF Christ". Many times the phrase "by the faith OF Jesus Christ" has been changed to "by faith IN Jesus Christ". See for example Romans 3:22; Galatians 2:16, 20; 3:22; Ephesians 3:12; Phillipians 3:9; James 2:1; Revelation 2:13; and 14:12.

Romans 3:22 "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference."

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Here the NKJV, NIV and NASB have all changed this to "faith IN Jesus Christ", thus changing the truth that this faith comes from Jesus Christ and instead implying that it comes from ourselves.

This is not a question of Greek texts differing, because they all say the same thing, dia pisteos iesou xristou, the genitive of possession or source. We speak of the birth of Christ, the death of Christ, the resurrection of Jesus, the body of Jesus, the cross of Christ, the riches of Christ, the kingdom of Christ, the glory of Christ, and many other things using the same grammatical construction, but suddenly the NKJV, NAS, NIV, and most modern bibles now have "through faith IN Jesus Christ."

The older Bibles - Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation all read as the King James Bible, and so do the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21, but the ASV of 1901 changed about half of these references to "the faith OF Jesus Christ" to faith IN Jesus Christ, and from then on all the references have been changed in the NKJV, RSV, NASB and NIV.

Deuteronomy 32:5

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV and NAS “bibles”. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?”

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughters”. They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

God’s children did corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they received belonged to the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of the chapter shows.

Now look at the NKJV in verse 5. “They have corrupted themselves: They are NOT His children, Because of their blemish.” The NAS is similar with its: “They are NOT His children because of their defect”. Both these versions tell us they are not His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they are His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

The NIV is even worse with its: “to their shame they are NO LONGER his children”. This teaches that one can be a child of God and then lose it and no longer be His child, yet verse 6 and 19 still refer to them as His children!

These are obvious false doctrines and contradictions. Other versions that agree with the KJB in verse 5 as teaching they are still His children are Darby, Youngs, Spanish, Italian Diodati, Hebrew-English of 1917, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and even the NRSV of 1989.

 

[brandplucked]

Psalms 110:3

"Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power."

This verse is often used to support the truth that it is God who worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Phillipians 2:13. This is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Darby, Amplified, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, Spanish Reina Valera, TMB, and the KJV 21.

However the NIV says: "Your TROOPS will be willing on your day of BATTLE." The NKJV has: "Your people will be volunteers in the day of your power" while the NASB reads: "Your people will volunteer freely in the day of your power."

1 Peter 1:22

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth THROUGH THE SPIRIT unto unfeigned love of the brethren..." This is a textual issue, but the phrase that shows we obey the truth through the Spirit of God is found in the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts. The NASB and NIV are based on very different manuscripts and omit this phrase.

1 Peter 2:25

"For ye were as sheep going astray; but ARE NOW RETURNED unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." The verb here ARE RETURNED is passive, not active. If we say the books are returned, we mean someone else brought the books back; the books didn't return themselves.

The RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Third Millenium Bible,and the KJV 21 all correctly translate this as "are now returned" unto the Shepherd. Even the Douay-Rheims says: "but are now converted to the Shepherd". This is not only grammatically but theologically correct. It is Christ our Shepherd who brings us back to Himself. The Lord Jesus said in John 10:16 "And other sheep I HAVE, which are not of this fold: them also I MUST BRING, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

The NKJV, NIV and NASB all make it sound as though we had returned on our own. They say: "you HAVE RETURNED TO the Shepherd".

1 Corinthians 4:7

"For who MAKETH THEE TO DIFFER FROM ANOTHER? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?"

This precious verse teaches the distinguishing grace of God. We are no better than the non-elect. God makes of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour. All is of grace and we can boast in nothing found in ourselves.

The reading or meaning is the same in the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, even the NIV and others. However instead of "Who maketh thee to differ from another" the NASB says: "For who REGARDS YOU AS SUPERIOR?". How would you even answer this question in the NASB? Does God regard you as superior? Is there something special in you that is not found in another? It doesn't even make sense.

Psalms 78:36

"Nevertheless they DID FLATTER him (God) with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues."

Psalm 78 rehearses the repeated sins of God's people and His continued faithfullness and mercy to them. We can flatter God by saying nice things about Him, yet walk contrary to His ways. This is called hypocrisy. The reading is the same in the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, Geneva Bible, NIV and many others - they did flatter God. However the NASB actually says: "But they DECEIVED HIM with their mouth." Can the all knowing, sovereign God be deceived by mortal man? Does the NASB portray the true God of the Bible, one that can be deceived?

Numbers 23:21

In the book of Numbers chapters 22 - 24, the false prophet Balaam had been called by Balak the king of Moab to curse Israel. God allowed Balaam to go with Balak, but rather than cursing the people of God, Balaam was compelled to bless them instead.

In Numbers 23:19-21 we read these beautiful truths: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.”

The next verse, 21, expresses a great truth in the KJB, but this is where the error of the new versions occurs. Verse 21: “He hath NOT BEHELD INIQUITY in Jacob, NEITHER HATH HE SEEN PERVERSENESS in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them”.

God has always dealt with His people according to the everlasting covenant of grace revealed to Abraham and his spiritual seed, confirmed to them and fulfilled in Christ.

Galatians 3:12-29. “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” God had redeemed His people out of Egypt (Exodus 6:6) and forgiven their sins, even though they were a stiffnecked people ( Numbers 14: 19, 20).

Just as God sees us as blameless, holy, and without spot (Ephesians 1:4; I Corinthians 1:8), not because of our own obedience or righteousness, but because we are covered with the righteousness of Christ, so too, were His people in the wilderness. This is a very important aspect of the doctrines of grace.

But see how this truth has been lost in the NASB, RSV and the NIV. The NASB says: “He has not observed MISFORTUNE in Jacob; Nor has He seen TROUBLE in Israel.” The NIV has: “No misfortune is seen in Jacob, no misery observed in Israel.” There had been plenty of misery and misfortune in Israel, but God is speaking a blessing through Balaam upon His redeemed people and stating how He sees them because they are His own peculiar people. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Romans 8:33. This great comforting truth in Numbers 23:21 is lost in the NASB and NIV .

I do not believe any other English bible contains all of God’s perfect, preserved, inspired words except the King James Bible. Frequently, the new version proponents like to gang up on the KJB, as though it were the only Bible to read a certain way.

Other versions which agree with the KJB here are the Hebrew into English versions of 1917, 1936, put out by the Hebrew Publication Company and the Jewish Publication Society of America, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901, Geneva Bible, Young’s translation, Darby, the NKJV, Amplified, KJV 21, TMB, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Bible in Basic English, Webster's translation, New Century Version and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960.

There is a huge battle going on in these days of falling away from the faith. The authority and truth of God's inerrant, perfect words and the doctrines of grace are under direct attack. Only in the King James Bible are all of God's perfect words of truth found today.

Will Kinney

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it would have been better to offer us the link:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

and a few paragraphs of controversy or summary to tease us to your essay. rather than post the whole thing.

imho, KJV-only is such a shallow issue in direct conflict with the Westminster confession that it is a non-starter with the Truely Reformed®.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

it would have been better to offer us the link:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/CalKJB.html

and a few paragraphs of controversy or summary to tease us to your essay. rather than post the whole thing.

imho, KJV-only is such a shallow issue in direct conflict with the Westminster confession that it is a non-starter with the Truely Reformed®.

btw while clicking through your essays i found:
The Origen of Saving Faith at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/faith.html
you might want to fit the spelling mistake, for it is misleading....

 

[Donny_B]

My church has sometimes used the RSV and NRSV in the pews. I read a Good News Bible in college and an NIV after college. But my father, who was the preacher of those churches, always read from the KJV when I was growing up.

The KJV was the one used by the Westminster Assembly, and is the version used in the footnotes of the WCF and Catechisms. That is why I now prefer it, for the consistency in theology and its having stood the test of time all these years. I also have read about some of the problems in the newer versions, which I was previously unaware of.

 

[Knight]

Sad..... Very sad....

 

[brandplucked]

Hi rmwilliams, you seem to be of the opinion that KJB onlyism is shallow and not in accord with the Westminster confession.

Brother, the central issue is do we have an infallible, complete Holy Bible today or not. I will wager that you do not have a complete, infallible Bible, right? If you do, then what is it called?

As for the Westminster confession and others, you will search in vain for anything that says "in the originals only" until you get to the apostate 20th century when all the new versions started coming out.

DID FUNDAMENTALISTS OF OLD STAND FOR THE KJV?


We could also go back far beyond the origin of the fundamentalists to see that Bible believers in the 16th and 17th centuries commonly viewed inspiration and preservation as twin doctrines. Consider the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1648: “The Old Testament in Hebrew . . . and the New Testament in Greek . . . being immediately inspired by God, and BY HIS SINGULAR CARE AND PROVIDENCE KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”


The same words were used in the London Baptist Confession of 1677 and the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. The Protestant Confession of Faith, London, 1679, is even plainer and includes the Received Text English Bible in its statement of preservation: “And by the holy scriptures we understand, the canonical books of the old and new testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER-TONGUE, OF WHICH THERE HATH NEVER BEEN ANY DOUBT OF THEIR VERITY AND AUTHORITY, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day.”


So, are you an "original onlyist"? If so, the only logical conclusion is you do not have an infallible Bible today.

As for the comments of the one guy who says "So sad, so sad", the only thing sad here is that he doesn't see how his ESV is a bogus bible version that frequently rejects the Hebrew texts, and follows the wrong Greek texts and perverts the truth of God in many verses. That is what is sad.

Will Kinney

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All my Reformed Friends

It is sad to see this issue IMO being brought here. Brand are you a reformed believer??

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[rmwilliamsll]

first-
perspicuity of Scripture

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

second-
the whole of scripture

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

third-
Scripture interprets Scripture

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16]

lastly-
all theological controversies are to refer to the original languages, not ANY vulgar ones

VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]



this is why the KJV-only controversy is a tempest in a teapot here.

 

[brandplucked]

Hi B, you ask if I am Reformed or not. When I logged on to this site it said I could post. I am first a Christian, and I am also a Calvinist as far as election, predestination, and sovereign grace are concerned. I'll bet a lot of you brothers thought all KJB onlies were Arminians, huh? Well, we're not. I know of a lot of King James Bible believers who are Calvinists.

As for the Bible version issue, I believe this is the most serious area of apostacy facing the church today. I see more and more Christians who no longer believe any Bible or any text is the infallible, complete, preserved words of God, and this is the very foundation of our faith.

I wish most of today's Christians would just come out and say what they really believe. It goes something like this: "We do not now have any single text or Bible version that is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. It is up to each individual to sift through the conflicting versions and contradictory texts to determine for himself which readings are correct, and I am always correct. I have not yet put all my scholarly findings into a single Book, so in the meantime, you will have to buy my CDs, books, and publishings, or communicate with me personally to find out what God REALLY said."

I think many Christian boards are afraid to actually discuss this most vital issue because they will be forced to either be evasive and mutter a bunch of pious sounding mumbo-jumbo in order to seem orthodox, or be forced into admitting the only logical conclusion of their present belief system regarding the Inspiration and Preservation of the words of God is that there is not now nor ever has been a single Book we can hold in our hands and believe are the very words of God.

Are you going to back out too?

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Hi rmwilliams, If you were quoting directly from the Westminster confession, then you made me aware of things I previously did not know. However, I notice they make mention of the Hebrew and "the Greek". At the time the WC was written, guess which Bible they were using.

If only the Hebrew texts were inspired, then why do your nasb, niv, rsv, esv all frequently depart from these Hebrew texts? Want proof? I have plenty.

As for "the Greek", are they referring to anything specific? There are at least 25 or 30 different Greek texts out there; they differ from one another by up to some 5000 words in the N.T.; and they keep changing all the time. So which one of these texts is the preserved words of God?

The so called "science" of textual criticism is a pathetic joke.

I notice significantly that you never answered my question. The question.

Do you believe there is now any text or Bible in any language that is the complete, infallible, inspired wordS of God? I will wager that you do not.

So you think the KJB issue is a tempest in a teapot, do you? I think you are avoiding giving us an honest answer about what you really believe about the Inspiration and Preservation of the words of God, and are unwilling to admit that you do not believe any bible or any text you can hold in your hands today are the infallible words of God.

How about it? Care to give us a clear, unambiguous answer as to where you think the true words of God are found today? Or do we only have best guess scenarios that differ radically from each other in hundreds of verses, and we'll call that Close Enuf?

In His sovereign grace,

Will Kinney

 

[rmwilliamsll]

as the confession puts it:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

it is the doctrine of the verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs.
God has not seen fit to inspire ANY vulgar translations.
that is why TE's are required to have a grasp of Greek and Hebrew.

btw, I can subscribe (good faith or system, not strict) to the WCF.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi B, you ask if I am Reformed or not. When I logged on to this site it said I could post. I am first a Christian, and I am also a Calvinist as far as election, predestination, and sovereign grace are concerned. I'll bet a lot of you brothers thought all KJB onlies were Arminians, huh? Well, we're not. I know of a lot of King James Bible believers who are Calvinists.

As for the Bible version issue, I believe this is the most serious area of apostacy facing the church today. I see more and more Christians who no longer believe any Bible or any text is the infallible, complete, preserved words of God, and this is the very foundation of our faith.

I wish most of today's Christians would just come out and say what they really believe. It goes something like this: "We do not now have any single text or Bible version that is the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. It is up to each individual to sift through the conflicting versions and contradictory texts to determine for himself which readings are correct, and I am always correct. I have not yet put all my scholarly findings into a single Book, so in the meantime, you will have to buy my CDs, books, and publishings, or communicate with me personally to find out what God REALLY said."

I think many Christian boards are afraid to actually discuss this most vital issue because they will be forced to either be evasive and mutter a bunch of pious sounding mumbo-jumbo in order to seem orthodox, or be forced into admitting the only logical conclusion of their present belief system regarding the Inspiration and Preservation of the words of God is that there is not now nor ever has been a single Book we can hold in our hands and believe are the very words of God.

Are you going to back out too?

Will Kinney

Good Day, Will

No I am not going to "back out" as I see no compeling reason to be "in". As most KJVO people will admit it for them is a believe of Faith and I do not find it very resonable to discuss that premise to any great degree. I have posted in KJVO threads before as to gain factual information on this debate and listened to many disscussions on this issue and most are very charged "emotionally".

Good Day, Will

No I am not going to "back out" as I see no compeling reason to be "in". As most KJVO people will admit it for them is a believe of Faith and I do not find it very resonable to discuss that premise to any great degree. I have posted in KJVO threads before as to gain factual information on this debate and listened to many disscussions on this issue and most are very charged "emotionally".

Will, should we stop all NT Greek studies regaurdless of their form?


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Ken]

actually the Bible that early Calvinists used was the Geneva Bible, not the King James...

http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/igb.htm

http://www.reformed.org/documents/geneva/Geneva.html

the original notes are at http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/en.htm

"John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available."
http://globalcorp.com/geneva-bible/

 

[brandplucked]

Now see, what did I say? None of you brothers answered the principal question, did you? Do we have today anywhere on this earth a Book that contains the complete, infallible, preserved and pure words of God? If so, what is it called and where can I get a copy?

And the answers you all give is........?

I can only marvel at the supreme irony.

If any of you would actually be honest enough to give us a straight answer, it would be quite refreshing. I thought all you gentlemen (and ladies present) were smart, educated defenders of the faith. Well, here is a simple, straight forward question for you all, and none of you can come to grips with it.

"Emotionally charged"? You bet. I have very strong feelings and beliefs about the words of God and where they are found today.

In and by His grace,

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

No Doctrines Are Changed?

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

As Pilate asked his wife in the movie the Passion of the Christ: "Can you recognize truth when you hear it?"

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have "ORIGENS from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origen or a beginning.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the upcoming Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

However when we get to the NewKJV, ESV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html

Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo está puesto en maldad), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the Douay-Rheims 1950, the KJV 21st Century version, Green's literal translation and Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible all say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS."

Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation says: "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is set altogether in wickedness."

We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin and wickedness, just as the text says. But God is still in control and ruling over all His creation. "He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" Ephesians 1:11. Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Even though it may appear that wickedness is winning, the eye of faith sees His sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence.

However, believe it or not, many new versions change the truth of God's sovereign rule and would have us believe that Satan is the ruler of this world and is in control. In fact, they come right out and say it in these exact words.

The NIV says: "The whole world is UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EVIL ONE."

NASB " the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Today's English Version "the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One."

ESV (English Standard Version) "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

Living Bible 1981 "the world around us is under Satan's power and control."

ISV (International Standard Version) "the whole world lies under the control of the evil one."

The NKJV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible try to strike a medium with : " the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" but the NKJV as well as the NASB are also wrong when three times they refer to Satan as the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31; 14:30, and 16:11. Satan is NOT the ruler of this world. He is the spiritual "prince of this world", as the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the NIV correctly say, but there are also other spiritual "princes" or beings working among the nations, and all of them are under the control of God and not Satan.

For a more detailed study of who rules the world see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/controlworld.html

 

[brandplucked]

What is the fine linen, clean and white?

Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, ESV, NKJV teach - "but Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints" or "Judah is UNRULY with God, even AGAINST the Holy One who is faithful" as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?

<

Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

Will Kinney

 

[BBAS 64]

Welcome Back Ken

Nice to see you!

Bill