Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest

[Apologiaphoenix]

Time to finish dealing with the Living Bible.

-----------------

What are the final problems with the Living Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We're in the New Testament now in the Living Bible and today, we will wrap things up and then move on to the Amplified. As always, the original source is here. Let's commence.

John 2:4

KJV: "WOMAN, WHAT HAVE I TO DO WITH THEE? MINE HOUR IS NOT YET COME."

LB: "I can't help you now, He said, It isn't yet my time for miracles."

COMMENT: His hour would come at Calvary. His HOUR and His MIRACLES are not the same.

The problem here is that both sides are doing the same thing. Johnson is arguing the hour is Calvary. The Living Bible is saying it's the time for miracles. Both are doing interpretation more than translation. There is a rule that every translation is also an interpretation. Which one is correct? I'm not going to take a side, but leave it to you to decide. Either way, it's a flimsy argument to say "This is a bad translation because it disagrees with my interpretation."

John 3:13

KJV: "AND NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN, BUT HE THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, EVEN THE SON OF MAN WHICH IS IN HEAVEN."

LB: "For only I, the Messiah, have come to earth and will return to heaven again."

Comment: Not true, LB! Remember the angels on Jacob's ladder?

Even if we went with the KJV, there are a number of atheists who would say that Elijah ascended to Heaven. A correct understanding has to answer both of them. When done, both translations will work.

John 6:69

KJV: "AND WE BELIEVE AND ARE SURE THAT THOU ART THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD."

LB: "And we believe them and know you are the holy Son of God."

COMMENT: The word Christ means "anointed". Why does the LB strip him of his anointing?

There are plenty of verses that speak of Jesus as the Christ. What Johnson is doing is taking one spot where this is changed. That's hardly the way to go about a conspiracy to eliminate the Messiahship of Jesus from the text.

John 13:26

KJV: "JESUS ANSWERED, HE IT IS, TO WHOM I SHALL GIVE A SOP, WHEN I HAVE DIPPED IT."

LB: "He told me it is the one I honor by giving the bread dipped in th sauce."

COMMENT: Was Jesus Christ really HONORING Judas?

Actually, yes. He was. Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas. Judas was actually in a place of honor. Had he not been the one to betray Jesus, we could be hearing more about how Judas was put in a position of trust. This is part of the grace of Jesus. Even His enemies were treated with love.

Acts 9:5

KJV: "AND HE SAID, WHO ART THOU, LORD? AND THE LORD SAID, I AM JESUS WHOM THOU PERSECUTEST: IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS."

LB: "Who is speaking sir, Paul asked. And the voice replied, I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and await my further instructions."

COMMENT: Jesus title "LORD" is changed to `SIR'. And Saul's name is changed to Paul.

See above at John 6:69 for the first part. Also, the Living Bible is a paraphrase trying to keep matters simple so the name of Paul being used isn't a major deal then.

I Cor. 16:22

KJV: "IF ANY MAN LOVE NOT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA MARANATHA."

LB: "If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed, Lord Jesus, come."

COMMENT: Once again; Jesus Christ is separated from title 'Lord'

Once again, in the end, Jesus is still referred to as the Lord. This simply boils down to "The LB disagrees with the KJV."

II Cor. 8:9

KJV: "FOR YE KNOW THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST."

LB: "You know how full of love and kindness our Lord Jesus was."

COMMENT: Lord Jesus Christ is stripped down to: Lord Jesus.

More of the same....

I Tim. 2:5-6

KJV: "FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS, WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME."

LB: "That God is on one side and all the people on the other side, and Christ Jesus Himself, man, is between them to bring them together by giving His life for all mankind."

I am not sure what Johnson is upset about. He doesn't say.

I Tim. 3:16

KJV: "AND WITHOUT CONTROVERSY GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH."

LB: "It is quite true that the matter to live a godly life is not an easy matter, but the answer lies in Christ who came to earth as a man."

COMMENT: Remember the test for the anti-christ. The anti-christ cannot say: "JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH". Notice how the LB dances around this verse! Apparently the LB cannot say "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH!

Or it's just a paraphrase....

I John 1:7

KJV: "AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST HIS SON CLEANSETH US FROM ALL SIN."

LB: "The blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us from every sin."

COMMENT: Jesus Christ is stripped down to Jesus.

It gets so tiring to see the same thing again and again.

Revelation 6:17

Rev. 6:17

KJV: "FOR THE GREAT DAY OF HIS WRATH IS COME ..."

LB: "Because the great day of THEIR anger is come and who can survive it?"

Comment: What do "HIS" wrath and "THEIR" anger have in common?

Well, let's see. The KJV sees the one on the throne and the lamb likely as one and the same. The Living Bible translators think it means the Father and the Son. Both are pointing to the same source essentially.

Next time, we will look at the comparison to the Amplified Bible.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ready to look at the Amplified?

-----------------

What are the "problems" with the Amplified Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So it's back once again to this train wreck of a work. Still, I've got into it and I plan to see it through to the end and it has been educational to some extent to look up some of these verses and see further evidence of how wrong KJV-onlyists get it. At any rate, the original link can be found here. For now, it's the KJV vs the Amplified Bible.

The first will be two together.

Gen 1:21

KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."

AMP: "God created the great sea monsters ..."

Matt. 12:40

KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."

AMP: "For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster ..."

COMMENT: God creates monsters?

I don't think monsters is the best term to use, but at the same time, just saying monsters doesn't show it's wrong. After all, God created more than just whales and the term does refer to more still. Actually, when you look it up, the first definitions are dragons, serpents, and sea monsters.

Gen. 2:7

KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."

AMP: "... and man became a living being."

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL.

Except this is a matter of interpretation and not translation. There are some people who think some of the higher animals do have souls. There are some who do not. The term is used to describe living creatures besides men even just within Genesis.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."

AMP: "But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil."

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not evil! Think about the difference between "as gods" and "as God".

Yes. It's obviously major blasphemy to have the serpent speaking falsely about God in the Bible. The devil should only speak in ways that honor God! Rank blasphemy right there to have anything else!

Besides, does Johnson think unfallen man would have concepts of other gods?

Lev. 3:13b

KJV: "... and the sons of Aaron shall SPRINKLE the blood thereof upon the altar round about."

AMP: "... and the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood against the altar round about."

The Hebrew word can mean both sprinkle and throw. I leave it to the scholars of Hebrew to determine which they think best fits the context.

Judges 7:20b

KJV: "... and they cried, the sword OF the LORD, and OF Gideon."

AMP: "... and they cried, The sword for the LORD and Gideon."

Comment: Notice: "OF" was changed to "FOR"

Yes.

And?

2 Sam. 21:19

KJV: "... Elhanan ... slew THE BROTHER OFGoliath ..."

AMP: "... Elhanan ... slew Goliath ..."

Comment: The scholars missed this one! Most Sunday school children know that DAVID slew Goliath.

This one has already been dealt with here.

Daniel 3:25

KJV: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

AMP: "... And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!"

COMMENT: It was Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. It was Jesus Christ who saved them from the fiery furnace. And, it is Jesus Christ who saves you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. Hell). There is a big difference between "THE SON OF GOD" and 'a son' of 'plural' gods! Think about it.

Already dealt with here.

Zech. 11:17

KJV: "Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!"

AMP: "Woe to the worthless and foolish shepherd who deserts the flock!"

Comment: Idol and worthless/foolish are very different.

Again...

Zech. 13:6

KJV: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

AMP: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds on your breast - between your hands? Then he will answer, Those with which I was wounded [when disciplined] in the house of my (loving) friends."

COMMENT: Folks: This is a verse prophesying Jesus Christ. Jesus was wounded IN HIS HANDS (and also on His back), BUT NOT ON HIS BREAST! Also, Jesus WAS NOT BEING DISCIPLINED when He went to the cross! Jesus did nothing wrong! And, lastly, Jesus WAS in the house of "His" friends, but they WERE NOT BEING "loving" back to him!

Again, I dealt with this here. Johnson thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the passage is describing Jesus as a prophecy, but the problem is he doesn't argue for it. He takes it for granted and then if anyone else agrees and translates it a way that disagrees with his interpretation, then they are obviously wrong.

And that's it for the Amplified and the Old Testament!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Ending the section on the Amplified.

--------------

What else is supposedly wrong in the Amplified? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It's definitely a labor of love going through King James Onlyism. As always, the original source can be found here. Right now, we are looking at the KJV compared to the Amplified.

Matt. 18:11

KJV: "For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost."

AMP: "For the Son of man came to save (from the penalty of eternal death) that which was lost."

Comment: The AMP says Jesus Christ "came" to save that which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The AMP implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone, TODAY, can be saved by Jesus Christ. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. This AMP corruption is very subtle but very important.

Unfortunately for Johnson, this is false. The Greek word here is ηλθεν. Anyone is welcome to look it up even in Blue Letter Bible and you will find it is in the aorist tense, which refers to the past. Hint Johnson. You don't determine the tense of a word by just looking at what you think it should be. You look at it by studying the word itself.

Also, I really don't see the Amplified implying this at all. Johnson wants it to say this. This is just a failure of the principle of charity when reading a text you disagree with.

Mark 1:2

KJV: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

AMP: "Just as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will make ready Your way;"

Comment: Sometimes verses in the New Testament requote the Old Testament. This is happening here. The verse being quoted is not in Isaiah, as the AMP says, it is from Malachi 3:1. Check it out! Not only does the AMP misquote the Word of God, it even mis-quotes itself. The KJV has the correct reading: "As it is written in the prophets ...", because Malachi was a prophet!

Verbatim what was said before. See my response here.

Luke 2:33

KJV: "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

AMP: "And His [legal] father and [His] mother were marvelling at what was said about Him;"

Comment: This is blasphemy! Contrary to what the AMP would say, Joseph WAS NOT Jesus' father! God WAS Jesus' father! Every Christian knows this! And contrary to the AMP, God was also Jesus' LEGAL father. Think about what the AMP is saying: If Jesus' had an earthly father, then He is just any man. If He is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved. If we are not saved, then we have a BIG PROBLEM.

Same thing again. See here.

John 3:13

KJV: "And NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

AMP: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven; but there is One Who has come down from heaven, the Son of man [Himself], Who is - dwells, Whose home is - in heaven."

Comment: Not true AMP. There HAVE BEEN others who have gone up to heaven. Remember the angels of Jacob's ladder? They were ascending and descending. The KJV has the correct reading which is: "... NO MAN hath ascended up to heaven ..."

Johnson repeating himself again. See here.

Acts 12:4

KJV: "... after Easter ..."

AMP: "... after the Passover ..."

See here.

Acts 17:22

KJV: "Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS."

AMP: "So Paul, standing in the center of the Areopagus [Mars Hill auditorium] said: Men of Athens, I perceive in every way - on every hand and with every turn I make - that you are most religious ..."

Comment: Come on! Being "most religious" and "TOO SUPERSTITIOUS" are entirely different!

At least he makes my job very easy when he keeps repeating the same claims. See here.

1 Cor. 5:7b

KJV: "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed FOR US:"

AMP: "... for Christ, our Passover [Lamb], has been sacrificed."

COMMENT: Leaving out "FOR US" misses the point entirely.

See here.

1 Cor. 16:22

KJV: "If any man love not the Lord JESUS CHRIST, let him be Anathema Maranatha."

AMP: "If any one does not love the Lord ... he shall be accursed ... "

COMMENT: Leaving out "JESUS CHRIST" leaves us guessing as to whom the AMP wants us to love.

And here.

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: "For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God ..."

AMP: "For we are not, like so many ... peddling God's Word ..."

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. 'Modern' bibles try and hide from the truth that they are 'corrupting' the Word of God.

See here.

Gal. 2:20

KJV: "I AM crucified with Christ ..."

AMP: "I have been crucified with Christ ..."

COMMENT: The AMP says their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Same as above.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: "Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God ..."

AMP: "Therefore be imitators of God ..."

Comment: The AMP documents Satan's position exactly. ONLY Satan tries to IMITATE God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can't rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his "fishers of men" to imitate Him. Jesus said: "follow me ...".

Again.

Philipians 3:8

KJV: "... and do count them but DUNG, that I may win Christ,"

AMP: "... and consider it all to be mere rubbish ..."

See here.

1 Tim. 3:16

KJV: "... God was MANIFEST in the flesh ..."

AMP: "... He (God) was made visible in human flesh ..."

COMMENT: God wasn't just made visible, He was MANIFEST in the flesh. The image of the beast, in Revelation, is going to be made visible!

So at least we have something different this time. The terms however are pretty much identical in the original languages. The word lists definitions of both manifest and made visible.

1 Tim. 6:10

KJV: "For the love of money is THE root of all evil ..."

AMP: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ..."

COMMENT: There is a big difference between AMP's "a" root and the correct KJV reading of "THE" root.

See here.

1 Tim. 6:20

KJV: "... oppositions of SCIENCE falsely so called"

AMP: "... contradictions in what is falsely called knowledge"

Same.

1 Peter 2:2

KJV: "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby:"

AMP: "Like new born babes ... desire - the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may ... grow unto [completed] salvation."

COMMENT: The AMP leaves out "OF THE WORD". It's God's Word that makes us grow. Also, unlike what the AMP says, we DO NOT grow to "[completed] salvation". That says salvation is by works! That is heresy. Remember: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

See here.

Ultimately, part of the problem here is Johnson just repeats himself over and over again. How much research did he really do? Likely very little if any.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Blasphemy 101.

--------------

How bad can it get? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So yesterday, I started looking ahead at what was coming today in our look at this work. I had heard Johnson use the term blasphemy, but apparently, he was blind to the idea that he would commit it himself. I have tried to be as charitable as I can, but there is no other way I can describe it as that. At any rate, the source material can be found here and we'll be looking at the first part of chapter 4.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Okay. Hard to argue with Scripture. This is a great introduction to creation anyway. Let's see where he goes.

When the Word was written down, the Word was then called 'Scripture'.

.................

Oh my.....

I keep wanting to think he did not say this. I mean, I have seen other people say this, but for someone to say this and publish it on a website? Someone who is accusing others of blasphemy and heresy at every point? At this point, no one should take seriously anything Johnson says about interpreting Scripture.

Johnson has taken a passage of Scripture about Jesus Christ and made it about the King James Bible instead. I want to be charitable in my reading, but I can't see any way around this. If someone can, I am open to it, but this just shows the idolatry of the movement.

Put in the Bible for the word "Word" in the prologue of John and it doesn't make sense. This is more akin to a Muslim view of Scripture than a Christian view. This is treating Scripture as if it was involved in the creation account and is a person.

And Robert Breaker shares this as an excellent work? Says a lot about him too.

The original recordings of Scripture are called 'autographs'. Animal skins and papyrus (paper) were used for these first autographs. Unfortunately, because of decay, these original autographs no longer exist. What does remain are copies, made by scribes, of these original autographs. These scribal copies are called 'manuscripts'.

Okay. Nothing objectionable here at least.

The manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew and the manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. We do not have many Old Testament manuscripts. But, we have more than 5,000 New Testament manuscripts.

The number could be a bit outdated depending on when this was written. Unfortunately, I cannot find such a date.

From these manuscripts variant readings are analyzed and an agreed upon master 'text' is derived. From the agreed upon 'master text' a Bible can then be translated into the desired language.

The text is constantly updated based on new manuscripts being found, but we'll accept this for now.

Thus our Bible was first the Word of God, then an original 'autograph', then a scribal copy 'manuscript', then an agreed upon 'master text', then an English Bible.

It seems a bit more complicated than that and geez, why favor the English language? The Bible is only the Bible if written in English? Something else I found myself pondering is there are dead languages now that we read, but no one really speaks. What happens if in the future English becomes one of those? Do we suddenly lose the Bible?

If any KJV-onlyists want to answer, I welcome it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Time to look at the Old Testament.

----------------

How did we get the Old Testament? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We saw yesterday a statement that I could not describe as anything less than blasphemous. Today, Johnson is going to tell us some about textual transmission. (Perhaps if you wanted to write about Bible translation this would have been a better place to start.) The link can be found here.

"The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD" [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

"The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts" [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

"The original Hebrew manuscripts were not 'pointed', that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text" [S15P7].

Okay. Nothing really objectionable so far.

This oral tradition continued until:

"... a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds" [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the 'written tradition'.

The Masoretes did a valuable service, but we should not ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Those were people trying to be faithful to the text as well.

In Alfred Levell's book "The Old Is Better"; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

"For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ ... After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies" [S13P17].

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

"... many complicated safeguards ... such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book" [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

"The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the 'Oracles of God'. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung ... In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther - the whole was rejected" [S2P112-113]

Fuller is at least a scholar, but he wrote this book back in 1970 and we have learned more sense then. He is also another KJV-onlyist. Still, there is really nothing wrong with this statement.

In his book "God Wrote Only One Bible", Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

"In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing 'Jehovah' lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a 'clean' animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original" [S4P94-95].

I can find nothing on Ray, but once again, Johnson is only echoing his own side. He has thus far not studied anyone on something as simple as textual transmission except those who agree with him.

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

"... the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text" [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

"... many secondary witnesses ... including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts" [S18P153].

Again, still no problem.

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

"The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... The Old Testament was our Lord's only study book .... Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New" [S2P113-114].

In the booklet "God's Inspired Preserved Bible" the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

"As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ's words were taken directly from the Old Testament" [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

I have no problem with using the Masoretic text, but I have no desire to throw out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We shall continue next time with the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Time to look at the New Testament

-------------

How did we get the New Testament? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So today, we're going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

"The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God" [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

"The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament" [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don't really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell's book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don't know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

"John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom" [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the 'Majority Text'. It has also been referred to as the 'Traditional Text' and it is also called 'The Textus Receptus'.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name 'Textus Receptus' because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

"Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text" [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the 'Majority Text', the 'Traditional Text', the 'Textus Receptus' and the 'Received Text'. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term 'Traditional Majority Text' to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term 'Corrupted Minority Text' to describe the substitute text used in 'modern' versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let's trace the history of both the 'Traditional Majority Text' and the 'Corrupted Minority Text' and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We'll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[rogue06]

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

I found more about his widow than about him

Mrs. Lily Levell, the widow of Alfred J. Levell (for many years Secretary of the Trust), is 95 years old. She was baptized by old John Kemp at Biddenden in 1931, so has been in church membership for 81 years!

[One Bad Pig]

Time to look at the New Testament

-------------

How did we get the New Testament? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So today, we're going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

"The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God" [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

"The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament" [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don't really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell's book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don't know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

"John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom" [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the 'Majority Text'. It has also been referred to as the 'Traditional Text' and it is also called 'The Textus Receptus'.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name 'Textus Receptus' because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

"Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text" [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the 'Majority Text', the 'Traditional Text', the 'Textus Receptus' and the 'Received Text'. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term 'Traditional Majority Text' to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term 'Corrupted Minority Text' to describe the substitute text used in 'modern' versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let's trace the history of both the 'Traditional Majority Text' and the 'Corrupted Minority Text' and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We'll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Textus Receptus (3rd Edition of Erasmus' hastily collated text) behind the KJV (and NKJV) NT is not the Majority Text - as a look at the NKJV will show; the NJKV footnotes where they differ.

[Apologiaphoenix]

A look at the Peshitta.

--------------------

What's the next step in getting our Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we're moving on with Spiritual Deception in the Highest into the history of the text. Of course, no scholars of textual criticism have been cited. If you were a scholar in the field, this would be somewhat understandable, but Johnson is not. As always, the source material can be found here.

After the Apostle John died, the Church used its collection of New Testament manuscripts. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these separate manuscripts were brought together into codex (book) form.

Could be, but no sources are cited. Now could one of the Early Church Fathers said this? Sure. Is this plausible? Yes. Still, my problem is that Johnson just gives assertions.

In the very early years of the Church, the Traditional Majority Text (i.e. the Bible) was called the Greek Vulgate; Greek because it was written in Greek and Vulgate because Vulgate means:

"... that which is popular; the usual or best known, and most used by the majority of the people" [S4P97].

Again, this could be the case, but Johnson gives me no reason to believe it and since I have already seen his research isn't good on what I have studied in-depth and even things I can check in just a couple of minutes. Now it could be that the S 4 refers to the fourth book in his footnotes, but is this a scholarly source who has studied the history of textual transmission? I have no reason to think so.

Then around 150 A.D. the Greek Vulgate (the Traditional Majority Text) was translated into Syrian. This Bible, for the Syrian Church, was named the 'Peshitta Bible'. Syriac scholars state that the Peshitta Bible was:

"... careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style" [S4P97].

Again, this is entirely plausible, but it would be nice to know who these scholars are. The source could say something, but I still question Johnson's sources.

In his book: "Believing Bible Study", Edward F. Hills compares the Syrian Peshitta Bible to the Traditional Majority Greek Text:

"The Peshitta Syriac version agrees closely with the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts ..." and he says: "... the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text" [S8P94].

No problem here really. Biblical transmission has been very accurately done.

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason (i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e. corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date back to the early manuscripts. The quote above shows the 'Traditional Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

And that translation was done at an early time, yes, but that does not mean that the manuscripts were the best. Keep in mind that we have found new manuscripts since then and especially with the Old Testament, we have found the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am fine with the idea that Westcott and Hort said this, but I would also like to know why they thought what they thought, but Johnson doesn't want to give us the argument.

It used to be that: "... some scholars of the nineteenth century believed that the 'Majority Text' was a fourth century recension and did not represent the earliest manuscripts ... This [theory] has been abandoned by most present day scholars" [S3P480].

And who are the present day scholars? When is the present day?

Isn't it appropriate that the Traditional Majority Text can be traced back to the early Church in Syria. I say this because it was in Syria, specifically at Antioch the capital of Syria, where believers were first called 'Christians'! ( Acts 11:26 ).

Why this would indicate this text is the best? Your guess is as good as mine.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Time to discuss another step in Bible translation

----------------

What about the Italic Bible? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We're going forward in the next step in Bible translation. It's not a shock that Johnson punts to the devil here to make his case. As always, the original can be found here.

At the same time as the Syrian translation, but in another part of the world; the common language of Italy, France, and Great Britain was not Syrian, but Latin. Thus, for these countries, a Bible was needed in Latin. Therefore, the original Greek Vulgate (The Traditional Majority Text) was translated from Greek into Latin. This is believed to have occurred no later than 157 A.D.

"One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy ..." [S4P98]. The Waldenses were: "lineal descendents of the Italic Church" [S4P98-99]. More will be said of the Waldenses later on, but as for the Italic Church suffice it to say that:

This part is a bit confusing. Is he saying one of these Bibles was the first for a group that came about 1,000 years later? It sounds odd really to make a case like that.

"Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity" [S4P98].

The only thing I can find about Allix other than Wiki sources is here. All we have here though is an assertion. No manuscript evidence is given of this. If Allix is also part of the Italic Church it wouldn't be much of a shock to hear this said.

Augustine, speaking of the Latin Bibles, said: "Now among translations themselves the Italian (Old Itala) is to be preferred to others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression" [S2P208].

I did a search for this quote and I cannot find it which is problematic. Without finding it, it's hard to know if it is a real quote or not. If it is, I have no idea what the context is.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, traced the history of the 'Traditional Majority Text' to the Waldenses of the Italic Church. He says the Traditional Majority Text was:

"... adopted into the version that prevailed in the Latin Church" [S4P99].

This means:

"... the basis for the King James Bible has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century" [S4P99].

Once again, the problem is that I cannot find who Dr. Nolan is exactly. I tried looking for the quotes, but to no avail. Either way, most of us would have no problem saying the KJV was in line with early manuscripts. No one is arguing that the KJV is a bad translation, but that does not mean it is perfect or even the best.

This statement about the Italic Bible of 157 A.D., along with the statement about the Syrian Peshitta Bible of 150 A.D., both date the 'Traditional Majority Text' with the earliest Church manuscripts.

For terminology sake we will call this Latin Bible the 'Old Latin'. And, as history shows, it's this 'Old Latin' Bible which agrees with the 'Traditional Majority Text' used in the King James Bible.

This Old Latin Bible saw widespread use. In his book: "An Understandable History of the Bible", Reverend Gipp says:

"The true gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation ..." [S1P82].

He goes on to say that:

"The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches ... throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term 'Vulgate' as a name. Vulgate ... which is Latin for common" [S1P67].

Even if we grant all of this, so what? None of this argues that the text of the KJV is perfect in every way.

S A T A N I S N O T F A R B E H I N D

In the Garden of Eden, after God spoke with Adam, Satan came by to offer his own translation!

It seems to follow; that whenever God makes His original, it's not long before Satan comes by with a counterfeit.

Satan will offer a counterfeit to God's original Greek Bible as well as a counterfeit to God's original 'Old Latin' Bible, and on and on.

Which ultimately begs the question. Johnson has provided no evidence of the devil corrupting texts and it seems odd that KJV-onlyists keep insisting God can keep His word pure, but apparently, it can also be easily corrupted.

As David Fuller points out in his book "Which Bible?": "From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault on God's Son and God's Word" [S2P4].

Well since from the beginning, it wasn't known that there was a second person of the Trinity or that God was even triune nor was there written texts of Scripture then....

The following quote, referring to Christ's victory at Calvary, summarizes Satan's actions against God's Bible:

"Vanquished by The Word Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against The Word written" [S2P96].

The devil must have been awfully bored until 1611 to have no pure and perfect word to go after. Not only that, I find capitalizing word in the second sentence to be problematic. This puts Jesus and the Bible on an equal level.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Tell me you don't know anything about Origen without telling me you don't know anything about Origen.

------------------

What was the devil's plan to corrupt Scripture? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I hear people, especially pastors, talk about how God gave them a sermon or God led them to do something or what God was doing in Heaven that is not revealed in Scripture, I inwardly cringe. What makes these people think they have insight into what's going on in the Heavens like this? I do the same when people talk about the devil this way too. So let's continue with KJV-only craziness that can be found here.

To attack God's true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption. The history goes as follows:

Yes. That obviously was the way. It couldn't be that you can just attack doctrine like Porphyry did in early church history.

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

"... founded the 'Catechetical School' at Alexandria. He brought the wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts" [S7P8]. "Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy" [S2P191].

Unfortunately, we are not told where Clement said this. I can find two possible places in his work, The Instructor, and both of them put such an idea in a light that is quite sensible and what we use today. First, there is chapter 12 of book 1. Also, there is chapter 4 of book 5, which I consider more likely.

Clement compares what He is doing to Christ speaking in parables to express hidden truths. C.S. Lewis would refer to the idea as sneaking past watchful dragons. The idea was a way to sneak truth into the minds of those who would reject it or to explain to people the truth of Scripture using concepts they already understand.

These 'historically early' changes to God's Word were also verified by Colwell who found that: "... as early as A.D. 200 scribes were altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a minority type" [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

This could be so, but Johnson needs to give us a reason beyond "Colwell says so." He needs to provide the evidence. Now if Colwell is who I think it is, then he is a scholar indeed, but we still want his reasons.

READER NOTE: "... it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations" [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

Jerusalem was the place where God's name would dwell, thus Jerusalem is good. Also, in Jerusalem....

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt is: "... the house of bondage" (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: "... the iron furnace" (Deuteronomy 4:20).

Nineveh was also bad, and yet God sought to redeem it.

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It was about Egypt that God said to Israel: "Ye shall henceforth return no more that way" (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: "... pagan city known for its education and philosophy ..." [S1P51].

I wonder why Johnson doesn't go into detail on the history of the people of Israel following this kind of logic....

Now, back to the story:

"... The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible called the 'Hexapla'. Each of the columns had a different version of the Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his liberal ideas. He spiritualized God's Word. He believed Christ to be a created being just as Jehovah's Witnesses teach today" [S7P8].

I was having no problem with this until I got to the part about changing verses immediately and saying Christ was a created being. He would need to show where this was. This is not to say that Origen did not hold some crazy ideas. There is a lot of truth that he did spiritualize and allegorize a lot, but I have no basis for thinking his Christology was Arian.

Also:

"Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!" [S5P65]. We know: "Origin was the first person to teach purgatory" [S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: "The laws of men appear more excellent and reasonable than the laws of God" [S3P527]. And, we also know that: "Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication that he was spiritually saved" [S4P112].

The first part is nonsense. The second part I would need to see evidence of. For the third, I want to see where this is, but note that he says "appear." That could well be describing what a non-Christian audience would think, and today even that is true. As for the last, the guy spent his entire life in service of God. What does he mean by no indication?

In her book "New Age Bible Versions" [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:

Excuse gag reflex at the mention of Riplinger. Also, the guy's name is "Origen" and not "Origin."

1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

Origen did believe in preexistence, but he needs to show where the idea of Jesus taking on such a soul exists.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

I consider both of these ideas nonsense. Show where Origen taught this.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.

Again. Show it.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

Yes. He did teach this.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

Show it.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.

The idea he did this is doubtful. The second needs to be shown.

Origin was also the author of the 'Septuagint'. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

The Septuagint was around at the time of Jesus......

Yet, some 'modern textual critics' use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of 'new versions'. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin's Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: "standardized early in the third century by Origin" [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God's Word.

"It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology" [S7P8]. "Origin, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy ..."

No. What is clear is that Johnson doesn't know a thing about Origen or church history. There is no reason to take him seriously on anything.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

The whipping boy has arrived!

------------

Who is to blame in church history? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. You talk about church history and where things went wrong and sooner or later, we all knew it would come to this place. Yep. It's church history's favorite whipping boy, Constantine. As usual, the source material is here.

After Origin, "The next step in corrupting the Bible was taken in the time of Constantine." [S7P8].

In 331 A.D. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he sought to: "... unite Christianity with pagan Rome" [S2P195]. He regarded himself as: "... the director and guardian of ... [the] world church" [S2P195]. "Constantine, the wolf of Paganism, openly assumed the sheep's clothing of the Christian religion" [S4P19]. "He accepted the Christian faith for political purposes and ordered a Bible that would appeal to the masses. Eusebius, a follower of Origin, was chosen for this task. This was the beginning of the Arian controversy concerning the Deity of our Lord and the spirit of ecumenism" [S7P8].

Of course, none of this actually cites Constantine himself or any quotes from the time. It's too easy to beat up on Constantine. I recommend listening to my interview with Peter Leithart on his book Defending Constantine.

At this point, let's pause for some clarification and definition:

A) The Arian controversy is the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being. i.e. that Jesus is: "the eldest and highest of creatures, rather than God manifest in the flesh" [S3P535]. The ramification is that Christ is fallen, is less than God, and is not equal to God. This is heresy.

I don't think it entails Christ is fallen if it means Christ is a sinful creature, but yes, we all agree that Arianism is heresy.

B) Ecumenism is the belief in a one world church where I'm OK, your OK, we're all OK. The ramification here is that no one is a sinner. Therefore, we do not need to be saved. This is NOT scriptural. This is a big lie. ( Note: Ecumenism is happening today)

This is one definition of it and one that I don't think most people would speak of by it. When I consider myself ecumenical, it means I can worship freely at any church that holds to orthodox Christian doctrine. It also includes in my eyes Catholics and Orthodox.

The truth is: "The Bible God wrote through holy men, does not teach ecumenicalism, i.e. that all religious systems should be united into one world-wide fellowship. Instead the Word of God teaches fellowship-separation between true believers and false professors" [S4P113].

Okay.....

Now, back to the history of the Bible. Eusebius has just been chosen by the so called 'Christian' Emperor Constantine to produce a corrupted Bible 'for the masses'. From historical records we know that:

Oh yes. Constantine definitely asked Eusebius to corrupt the Bible and Eusebius definitely did that. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. He had just edited the fifth column of the 'Hexapla' which was Origin's Bible. Constantine chose this, and asked Eusebius to prepare 50 copies for him ... The Emperor Constantine gave orders that ... this edition should be used in the Churches" [S4P18-19].

Odd that Origen's name is spelled differently in this paragraph. The Hexapla was not so much a Bible as it was a project to deal with textual variants. Left out is that Bibles were printed because Diocletian had destroyed so many in his persecution before.

"Together Constantine and Eusebius called for religious toleration, which is invariably followed by amalgamation. To placate both Christian and heathen, they took a 'middle of the road position' regarding the deity of Christ. Consequently ... the doctrine that Jesus was 'the eldest and highest of creatures', rather than 'God manifest in the flesh', was adopted ..." [S3P535]. And: "... the amalgamation of heathen and Christian doctrine - smoothing out differences thereby allowing for unity - was perfect for Constantine's purposes" [S3P535].

The religious toleration was for Christians. The Edict of Milan made Christianity a legal religion. True, Constantine wanted Arius back in the church.

Thus, Eusebius carried on Origin's work in corrupting the scriptures. And, as it turns out:

"Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origin ..." [S2P3].

Variations such as?......

Looking back at this point in history, G.A Riplinger makes an interesting observation. In her book "New Age Bible Versions" she says:

"Corrupt bibles, with their loose doctrine, seem to create loose living in A.D. 333 and in the 1990's" [S3P536].

That's something to think about.

Except there has not been any demonstration of loose living by Christians at the time. If anything, a few decades after Constantine Julian the Apostate emperor would say that Christians took care of not just their own, but also of the pagans. Instead, we have an assertion from someone who doesn't study history and making slanderous remarks about those who came before them. These are the people who are KJV-only.

That's something to think about.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about the Apocrypha?

-------------------

How far does supposed biblical corruption go? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we say church history's favorite whipping boy of Constantine whipped out. As we move on now, once again, Johnson lands on a new villain. Everyone has been involved in this diabolical plot and of course, this time the Pope is involved. We'll be citing the source material from here.

After Origin, Constantine, and Eusebius:

The "... corruption of God's Word was taken over by Jerome who was called upon by the Pope to prepare a Bible that would favor the Roman Catholic teaching" [S7P8]. "Jerome was furnished with all the funds that he needed and was assisted by many scribes and copyists" [S2P217].

I highly question this seeing Johnson doesn't even realize that Origen believed that Jesus lived physically on Earth. However, one could accept this and still say Jerome strived to copy the text faithfully. So far, as far as I have seen, Johnson's only sources are other KJV-onlyists, hardly convincing to those on the outside.

"Jerome in his early years had been brought up with an enmity to the Received text, then universally known as the Greek Vulgate ... The hostility of Jerome to the Received Text made him necessary to the Papacy" [S2P219].

Color me skeptical that the Papacy this early was opposed to one version of the Bible. We have none of Jerome's actual words cited, which considering he wrote a lot, would be easy enough. All we are getting is at best thirdhand information.

"Jerome was devotedly committed to the textural criticism of Origin, an admirer of Origen's critical principles ..." [S2P218]. To corrupt the Bible, Jerome went to "... the famous library of Eusebius ... where the voluminous manuscripts of Origin had been preserved" [S2P218].

It would be nice to know what is missing in these ellipses. However, since Origen did the most work before this in the area of textual criticism, it's not a shock if Jerome would want to utilize that. It would actually be foolish if he didn't.

As to the manuscripts of Origin and Eusebius, we know that: "it was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated ..." [S2P195]. And we also know that Jerome's translation "... became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time" [S2P195].

Which shouldn't be a surprise if true. Again, Origen had done the most work on this at the time. Wouldn't that make him a proper source to go to?

"... It was through Jerome that ... Apocryphal books were placed in the Bible. These were soon accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative" [S7P8]. "Jerome admitted that these ... DID NOT belong with the other writings of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Papacy endorsed them ..." [S2P218].

And boys and girls, time to recognize the irony. Which books were included in the original 1611? Ding ding ding! That's right! The Apocrypha!

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

"The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church."

https://1611bible.online/Apocrypha/

So obviously, the original KJV was in the service of Rome. Right?

Note at this it is not my goal to address whether the Apocrypha belong in the text or not. The point is the hypocrisy of it all. If the translation of Jerome is to be called into question for it, then so should the 1611 KJV be called into question.

In his book "An Understandable History Of The Bible" Reverend Gipp tells us that:

"Rome enlisted the help of a loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books ... which no Bible believing Christian accepts as authentic" [S1P82].

This is quite a claim since I know a number of Christians who do accept, however, if this is the case, then the original translators of the KJV were not Bible-believing Christians. Why is Johnson defending a Bible that was not translated by Bible-believing Christians? Wouldn't they be in the service of Satan?

"The Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in about 380 A.D. It was rejected by real Christians until approximately 1280 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name 'Vulgate' ... for Jerome's translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people ... It would seem that such deception lacks a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty" [S1P68].

It's amazing how much Gipp thinks he knows about real Christians back then. Also, what happened in 1280 that real Christians could accept it? How did the text change?

But: "The name 'Vulgate' on the flyleaf of Jerome's unreliable translation did little to help sales. The Old Latin Bible, or 'Italic' as it is sometimes called, was held fast by all true Christians ..." [S1P83]. Thus: "The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it" [S1P82].

So does this mean the Holy Spirit would not bear witness to the original 1611 KJV? After all, it had the Apocrypha. Why not include it in the Satanic plot?

So: "... the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles ... The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to ... Rome" [S1P84]. "True Protestants have always rejected ... Roman Catholicism and maintained the very opposite" [S12P103].

One can reject Roman Catholicism without thinking all Catholics are outside of Christianity. There are Protestants who think that they are. I'm not one of them.

This 'Old Latin' Bible was:

"... universally accepted by faithful Christians ..." [S1P68] and that "... it was responsible for keeping the Roman Catholic Church contained to southern Italy for years. It was not until the Roman Catholic Church successfully eliminated this Book through persecutions, torture, Bible burnings, and murder that it could capture Europe in its web of superstitious paganism" [S1P68].

Again, no sources are cited. Gipp is Samuel C. Gipp who has been on Ankerberg's show defending the KJV. I find this even worse though since this is someone from a time where more and more of this information is easily accessible and if so, then that means Johnson is from this time as well and yet has chosen to not access this information.

Reverend Gipp says:

"Perhaps we should learn a lesson. Where the ... King James Bible reigns, God blesses .... Oh, that America could but look at what has happened to England ... Yes, the sun began to set on the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible Society changed from the pure Textus Receptus ..." [S1P69].

Also, not long after the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. Maybe that's why God removed His blessing. At best, we have simply a post hoc fallacy here.

Thus, Satan used Jerome and the Catholic Church to substitute his counterfeit Latin Bible. But, this corruption "... which we will now call Jerome's translation - did not gain immediate acceptance everywhere. It took nine hundred years to bring that about. Purer Latin Bibles than Jerome's had already a deep place in the affections in the West. Yet steadily through the years, the Catholic Church has uniformly rejected the Received Text wherever translated from the Greek into Latin and exalted Jerome's ..." [S2P220].

And again, all we have is an assertion.

T W O B I B L E S T R E A M S

In the history of the Bible, we see the development of two 'streams' of Bibles: God's true Word and Satan's counterfeit. This started in the Garden of Eden and continues today. In fact, every Bible both old and 'new', and every Bible in every language, falls into one of these two categories.

We also see that some people are (knowingly or unknowingly) propagating the corruption and some are passing on the original.

In the next chapter we will break from our historical study and look at the personal side of the struggle for God's Word. We will look at a group of people, within the 'true Church', called the Waldenses.

The Waldenses, of the Italian Church, are trying to pass on God's original Bible.

Their's is an interesting story. Let's review the role they played in history.

And so we shall, next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[tabibito]

"Rome enlisted the help of a loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books ... which no Bible believing Christian accepts as authentic" [S1P82].

The New Testament authors' writing do call to the books of the apocrypha on occasion, so I'm not sure they can be dismissed as authoritative. The "Son of Man" as messiah shows a strong correlation with the book of Enoch.

[Apologiaphoenix]

The New Testament authors' writing do call to the books of the apocrypha on occasion, so I'm not sure they can be dismissed as authoritative. The "Son of Man" as messiah shows a strong correlation with the book of Enoch.

Well obviously a writer like Jude was not a Bible-Believing Christian.