23039232 AV Verses Matt to Acts to 59

8/14/2019 23039232 AV Verses Matt to Acts to 59

1/31

AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks1-59)

NEW TESTAMENT.

Matthew to Acts

Matthew 1: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn (protokos) son

but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son NRSV

This NRSV rendering is ambiguous and not only because firstborn is omitted. It allows the possibility of extra-marital relations in the form of fornication. This was the slander of the Pharisees, We be not born offornication (Jn. 8: 41. The NRSV also mistranslates this verse.)The virgin birth of Christ is questioned by the NRSV and most other modern versions. It is no longer believed bymodern clerics and theologians. Archbishop Tutu has publicly questioned Marys morality. It is however afundamental truth essential to our salvation.

protokos is well attested, being found in the majority of manuscripts and in ancient versions.

Matthew 3: 6....and were baptized of him in Jordan....All modern versions have the word baptized , and indeed all ancient versions have the word baptized andtranslate the Greek baptizo accordingly in every place. It is strange therefore that some of our brethren seek tomake an issue out of it and suggest the word should be translated immerse or dip. The AV translators were wellof aware of the various meanings of the word for at Luke 16: 24 we read that he may dip (bapto ) the tip of hisfinger in water.L Streeter, in his book Seventy five Problems, writes-

[The word baptism] was an English word in 1611. It had been an English word for hundreds of yearsbefore the King James translators were born. Baptisidand baptym were found in Wycliffes Bible in A.D.1380. This was 220 years before the King James translators used the word. The word baptize does

indeed mean to immerse, or to dip. That is the very literal meaning of the word. However, in using the wordbaptize FOR THE ORDINANCE OF WATER BAPTISM, the Holy Spirit obviously meant more than that.The ordinance of baptism is more than a burial. It is also a resurrection (Romans 6:4). Therefore, wemust conclude that the Holy Spirit helped the KJV translators to wisely use the word baptize rather thanimmerse. Every new version we checked says baptize. Not a single one of them says immerse. Whydo you suppose that the professor did not criticize the new versions on this point? (pp. 57, 58). found onWayoflife.org

Mathew 4:1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.Some of our commentators tell us that the reading should be "carried up" and not led up. But in Lk.22:66 wehave the same Greek word anago where we read, And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the

chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him [Christ] into their council. We do not believe the Lordwas carried in. He was always in full control of every situation whether in the Jews council or in the wilderness.In Matthew 4 we read of His willing response to the guiding of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the will of the Father.In Mk.1:12, immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. The Greek verb ekballo here is more oftentranslated "cast out", but in Jn.2:15 it is translated as in Mk.1:12, He drove them all out of the temple. Markexpresses the Lord's willing determination and the power in all his movements in pleasing the Father.We fear that sometimes Bible words are changed by preachers in order to give the impression that they have aninner knowledge not available to rank and file believers.Matthew 6:13

24


2/31

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.Critics will not accept this verse as genuine.

These words which were added to our Lords Prayer make it contradictory. It would be useless to pray forGods kingdom to come if the divine rule is already fully operative in the earth. At the time these uninspiredwords were added to the Lords Prayer, it was the general belief that Christs kingdom was ruling throughthe church-state systems of Europe, hence this effort to make the Bible support the claim.

www.bibletoday.com

Fred. Nolan, as long ago as 1815, proved in An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text that this verse hadexisted from the beginning. As usual, it is but a handful of depraved Romish manuscripts that omit it. Tatianquoted it in his Diatessaron (150-160 AD).Burgon wrote concerning the removal of this text, and others, from the text of Scripture,May we be permitted to say without offence, that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at theRevisers bidding were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,... she woulddeserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom?

It was never the general belief of the saints of God that Christs kingdom was ruling through the church-statesystems. It is the kingdom of GOD that is referred to. David spoke of it in 1 Chron.29:11, Thine, O LORD, is thegreatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the

earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. The sovereignty of theeternal God extends through all ages and the time is fast approaching when Christ will rule on earth for athousand years. The words of the thief on the cross were, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thykingdom. (Lk.23:42). He wasnt thinking of heaven either, as the Lord made plain in His answer.Matthew 7: 14Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (NKJV)The way is narrow which leads to life, meaning that it is restricted. There is no room for pride and love of sinalong this way. But the way is NOT difficult for one must come as a little child. The false translation of the NKJVpaves the way for the false gospel of self-effort in order to be saved. It is not do but done.

Matthew 8: 2There came a leper and worshipped him

Only deity is entitled to worship and here, and in ten other places recorded in the N.T., Jesus accepted worship.Darby did not like the idea of the Lord being worshipped so he changed it to do homage. The NIV has kneeledbefore in five of the eleven places.The suggestion that it doesnt really matter because the Lords deity is upheld in the other six references showsa v3ery careless approach to the Scriptures. Bible believers care about the omission of the truth even if it shouldbe only in one verse.

Matthew 9: 13But go ye and learn what thatmeaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call therighteous, but sinners to repentance.

to repentance is missing from modern versions. This explains why repentance is missing from modern preaching. The

Lord said, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. The removal of repentance ensures that multitudes of falseChristians will go to the lake of fire.

The words are well attested in the Greek manuscripts and were removed in a few spurious manuscripts.We note that J N Darby chopped these Spirit given words from his own translation. This will account for the unwillingness

to preach repentance by those who follow Darby today.

Matthew 9:15Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?

25
http://www.bibletoday.com/http://www.bibletoday.com/


3/31

Prof. David Gooding writes "When the Lord Jesus used the term 'children of the bridechamber', it was the everyday expression for 'guests of the bridegroom'. But the fact is in English we do not call wedding guests 'children ofthe bridechamber', any more than we call potatoes 'earth-apples'. Why not then, use the straight forward, naturalEnglish expression which everybody immediately understands, instead of a literal translation of an orientalexpression which in English sounds peculiar and puzzles many readers? At least, that is what many moderntranslations do in such cases, and why they differ from the AV". The Word; issue 36; p.23.Gooding does not believe in verbal inspiration. 'Bridechamber' and 'bridegroom' are both mentioned in this verse

and they are not the same. If guests of the bridegroom were intended then we would have to read, 'how can theguests of the bridegroom mourn as long as HE is with them?', as in the NIV. But that is a false reading. We mustread Scripture carefully. Thus Prof. Edersheim tells us that "all the invited guests bore the general name of 'children of the bridechamber'. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Vol.1 p.355. the bride's guests werethere as well. By this we see that modern versions fail to supply an accurate translation.But the whole significance of the verse is denied in modern versions. We are not reading of an ordinary weddingfeast. The context is the disciple's relationship with the Lord in something which is entirely new. They were notmerely guests at this wedding feast, to go home when it was all overthey were children. They would remainchildren of the bridechamber even after the bridegroom had been taken from them - and crucified.Friends enjoy closer relationships than those who are but guests, but these first disciples were more than justfriends of the bridegroom. The designation 'friend of the bridegroom'. belongs uniquely to John the Baptist,

(Jn.3:29). The bride is made upon all believers from Pentecost to the Rapture. John was outside of that, beingsent before Him. So these who were first described as children of the bridechamber, enjoying an intimaterelationship with the bridegroom, are also part of that bride which is the Church. They were all together on theday of Pentecost, the birth day of the Church, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them.Matthew 10: 5,8These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,....cleanse the lepers, raise the dead....

Dean ,Burgon who so skilfully dernolished the Westcott& Hort theories upon which the RV was based, wasnevertheless not 100% in favour of the Received Text. But then neither were the AV translators.There are anumber of places where AV readings are not found in the RT, Conversely, Burgon regretted that the phrase"Raise the dead" which IS in the RT, found its way into the AV.

Burgon wrote, "when our Lord first sent forth His twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerialcommission to them to 'raise the dead'. This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by ourRevisionists: because it is found in those corrupt witnesses- B C D, and the Latin copies. But he might alsohavepointed out that the words were kept in the RT because of the stronq ancient testimony to them|.It may be that Burgon's real objection was that the comand to raise the dead did not seem to fit in with theLords Commission" This, he says, is easily demonstrable. Only he didnt demonstrate it . That theApostles did have the miraculous powers given to them in Matt. l0, and that they used them after the Lordsascension is demonstrated in the book of Acts.

Particularly we note Acts 9:36-45. where we read of the death of Dorcas. Peter raised her to life again- Heobviously knew he had this power for it would have been very damaging to the furtherance of the gospel if Peterhad told her to arise and nothing had happened. It follows also that the men who went to fetch Peter knew thathe had been given this power. There would have been no value in calling him to come and look at a corpse if he

could do nothing about it. So we need not be surprised to read in the gospels of the occasion when the Lordconferred this power on the apostles. Paul also raised Eutychus from the dead, Acts 20: 9-12.This is ore of the very few placcs where Burgon slipped up and allowed his judgment to be coloured bysubjective reasoning. Dr. Letis has pointed this out in his book, The Eccliastical Text.

Matthew 12: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three daysand three nights in the heart of the earth.

Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, thatwhales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the

26


4/31

whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton. ketos (whale) is found here only in the NewTestament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation. It is better then simply to believe the Bible.The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2,Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou artas awhale.We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and itvomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow aman whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures arementioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these

three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized withthe fishes of the sea.

Matthew 13:4Some seeds fell by the wayside.It is being taught by some that seeds in this verse is not the Word, but refers to persons being sown. Theyconcede that in Luke 8:11, The seed is the word of God is an accurate translation, so making the Lord contradictHimself as do all the modern versions. They know that the word is the seed and he which received seed by thewayside (Mt.13:19) means he that was sown with the seed by the wayside or had the seed sown in him. It wassown in his heart, the verse says so. The sower never sowed him anywhere. The scholars cannot grasp theseelementary truths.

Matthew 17: 21Howbeit this kind (faith as a grain of mustard seed, in making prayer requests, v.20) goeth not out but byprayer and fasting.

....(omitted text) ESVV.21 not even referred to. no explanation s to why it is missing. NRSV

In this gluttonous age men will not pray and certainly they will not fast. No fasting: no tremendous answers toprayer.

However, there is extensive manuscript evidence for this verse and only two depraved manuscripts supportingthe omission; Aleph* and B theta.It is clear therefore that the words were wrested from Scripture by ungodly hands. The omission today is

supported by the ungodly textual criticsMatthew 18: 11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Modern Bible critics do not want the Son of man coming to save that which was lost. The verse is thereforerejected in most modern versions.One version rejecting these words is the NIrV. My copy was published in 1996 with introductions by SteveChalke..Under the heading Verses not found in the earliest Greek New Testaments we find the above verse listed. Howdoes Chalke come by this information? What and where are these earliest New Testaments? Reference toNew Testament implies all the books of the New Testament bound together in one. To which New Testamentsdoes he refer? He doesnt tell us.As it happens the verse is found in numerous papyri (these being older than any complete Greek N.T.), also it isfound in the majority the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is missing form very few manuscripts. Chalke wants

us to believe the verse was added by some illiterate believer very early on and then astonishingly kept inalmost without exception by every subsequent copyist.Chalke, has stated publicly that Catholicism is just another form of Christian worship (- Cecil Andrews; TakeHeed Ministries ;Oct.2004). Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus, denies the doctrine of PenalSubstitution. That is, he denies that God sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins.(1 John 4: 10).Chalke has been described as a Christian TV Star.- Belfast Telegraph; 12th Nov 1994.Matthew 18:15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee...It is alleged that the words against thee should be omitted from this verse. One reason given is that some

27


5/31

Greek mss omit them. In fact just two mss omit them, against the majority which keep them. These two are theSinaiticus (found in a rubbish bin in a Romish monastery by Tischendorf) and the Vaticanus, (kept in the Vaticanand never fully inspected by any believer at any time in its history.) Newberry lists some of the mss supporting'against thee' but his list is by no means complete. JND keeps the words without even a footnote. The RV keepsthe words but has a footnote, as also the NIV. Not even the Doauy-Rheims omits them. We have to come to theJ.W. New World Translation to find their omission.The words are quoted by several of the so-called Fathers long before the Sin. and Vat. were invented. They are

inspired words of Scripture. Their removal makes way for the Romish confessional box. Their removal allows sinto be covered up, for I can go to a sinning brother, who has sinned, not against me but against another brother,or maybe against his neighbour and certainly against his God and if I can persuade him to stop then no one elseneed know. We can sweep it under the carpet. We trust that is not the reason why some of our dear brethrenwant the words wrested from Scripture.

More about Mtt.18: 15

Despite all the evidence in favour of the received text, we read in a magazine, Truth and Tidings: May, 2005,published on the internet - most of the manuscripts from which our translations come either omit against theeor note that it may not have been in the original writings. We wonder how such a writer (David Oliver) can be soignorant. Or is this a malicious intent to deceive?

The above comments will be published in Waymarks 42, August 2005. You may wish to make a comment.

I received by email the following reply,

Dear Brother:Thank you for your very careful and thorough handling of the issue. If you knew our brother Oliver well, youwould not accuse him of being ignorant. Likewise, to call in question his motive - "Is this a malicious intent todeceive" would be the last thing you would do. If I remember correctly, Paul does warn against judging motives(1 Cor 4).I am not writing to defend, only to caution and to welcome helpful insights and comments without theunnecessary innuendoes and suggestions. Our brother Oliver would be the last to condone sin or to encouragethe pathway you have warned against.We welcome your thoughts and appreciate your honesty and the time spent in writing.

Warmly in Him,

Sandy

Dr Higgins appears to assure us that when Mr Oliver told his readers that most manuscripts reject against thee when in

fact only two popish manuscripts do, he knew what he was doing! The words against thee are part of holy Scripture given

by inspiration of God. It is a very serious matter to tamper with the word of God. Mr Oliver has compounded his error with

his lie. All attacks on Scripture are malicious. They cannot be anything else. Mr Olivers motives have not been questioned

by me. I know not whether his action springs out of pride, or the desire to appear erudite, or contempt for the AV Bible

which is the word of God, or a desire to destroy the faith of many, or such.

We note that the error was not corrected in the next issue ofTruth and Tidings. Let its readers remain misled!

Mr Oliver also attacked the virgin birth of Christ in an earlier issue of Truth and Tidings. This was answered in Waymarks

no. 28, repeated below.

A comment on this verse, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and

bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7: 14), found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, forOctober 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesnt mean what it

plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word virgin is clearly understood by all to mean a pure

young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is that the Hebrew almah is avague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English virgin.

almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that

a young woman capable of bearing children conceived, all would reply, some sign!.

The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of

Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son

28


6/31

Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We

have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom.

(2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.Truth and Tidings tells us this sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not! Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of

David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says Ask THEE (singular0 a sign. Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be

the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiahs wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of

David; The Lord Himself shall give YOU (plural) a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou (Singular) with a

prophecy in relation to Ahaz.

It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those whoregard themselves as the fount of all truth.

Matt.18: 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

There are some who make a play of the first in. They want to make it read unto my name on the grounds thatthe preposition eis may be translated unto. J N Darby appears to be the first (and only translator, that I can find) who makes this change. The change was made in order to promote an ecclesiastical system. The systembecame known as Exclusive Brethrenism and is now as much a false cult as any can be.Unto is an archaic word and has been replaced almost entirely by to (not in) in modern usage.. Eis istranslated by many English prepositions; to, into. in, throughout, for, unto, by, at, among, against, upon, toward,on, concerning. In is used at least 70 times, so we may deduce there is no reason at all why it should not be

in in Matt. 18: 20.

The idea in the original Greek of the New Testament is having been and being gathered together PresentTruth; Vol.15, June 2009, No. 172,`p. 52.Yet no translation or version carries so much as a hint of this idea. It is cult talk.

Matt. 19:9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marryanother, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Such is the Satans fury against Christ and His Word, that in this chapter nineteen of Matthews gospel alone, 35changes are made by the critical text.In verse nine the words and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery are not found in

the revised Greek NA text, and so are missing from modern versions. Yet the manuscript authority for them isextensive.The authority for retaining this clause is found in the following mss:-Papyri: (P25) B C* E F G H K N O U V W Y Z Delta Theta Pi Sigma Phi 078Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1, 13Old Latin: aur c f g2 VulgSyr: pesh harc palCop: boArm: EthAlso extant in Omega 047 055 0211 0233?Authorities rejecting this clause:

Papyri: Aleph C-3 D L SCursives: pc (i.e. a small handful)Old Latin: a b d e ff1,2 g1 h l r1Syriac: sin cur sa bo-msThus we find overwhelming evidence in favour of this clause.Wycliffes translation of Jeromes Latin vulgate c.1380 at this verse makes interesting reading; And I seie to

29


7/31

3ou, that who ever leeveth his wijf, but for fornycacion, and weddeth another, doith letcherie; and he thatweddeth the forsaken wijf, doith letcherie.Men will mutilate Scripture to serve their own ungodly purposes. The divorced partner may well be innocent butthe marriage bond still holds in heaven, so she is not free to remarry.Some are trying to get round this by saying that if the marriage is not consummated, the marriage can beannulled. But it is not consummation that makes the bond before God, but rather the formal marriage vow takenbefore witnesses. This binds until the death of one annuls it.

Matthew 20: 30Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children, with her sons, worshiping him, and desiring acertain thing of him.

Worship is the entitlement of God alone. Matthew, writing the gospel knew this; he had already recorded theLords response to Satan in ch.4, v.10 Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lordthy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The Lord Jesus Christ accepted worship while on earth. The motherof Zebedee;s children knew Him to be the Lord her God.By this perversions of Scripture become apparent when they deny worship to Jesus Christ here in the flesh.So, J N Darby will have her and her sons merely doing homage which is no more than acknowledging one of ahigher status. The Rheims Version has bowing down; Knox has falling on her knees and the NIV has herkneeling down.

The RT has proskuneo which is the usual word for worship in the Greek NT. The Critical Text mischievouslychanges the Greek word to proserkomaiwhich is first used in the TR at Mtt.4 : 3 when the temptercame tohim and is never translated worship in the AV Bible.

Matthew 23:8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master, even Christ.Exception is taken to these words by some of our teachers. They do not like Christ being Master, so they tell us,"the editors of the Greek Text amend verse 8 to read didaskolos = teacher (RV), though JND uses "instructor..."(What the Bible Teaches; Mt./Mk.p.308). What Greek Text? We presume the Westcott / Hort text is meant.These two Anglicans dabbled in Spiritism and were hostile to evangelical truth. The Greek word for "Master"occurs in the majority of mss, the alternative being found in a handful of Romish mss. They go on to tell us that

as the word should be "teacher", so the words "even Christ" should be omitted because the Holy Spirit is nowour Teacher and not Christ. But these words are well attested, being quoted by two of the early Fathers (so-called), NOVATIAN and GREGORY OF NYSSA. Critics should meditate upon Eph.4:20,21 where Paul remindsthe Ephesian saints that they have heard and have been taught by the Christ that they probably never saw in theflesh. Those who do not hear His voice remain without eternal life. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well;for so I am. Jn.13:13.Matthew 23:24

Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

This should read strain out a gnat say the Bible critics. One of them, W E Glenny, makes a great play over thisphrase. He writes in relation to this verse,Most believers realize that people can make mistakes in copying and printing the Bible; furthermore, they believe

that only the original autographs were inspired, not the KJV, or the TR, or any other translation or edition.However, for the King James-Only advocate, such differences are more than an embarrassment; they are acontradiction of the King James-Only position. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that shouldbe changed? If it has been changed, which edition is the inspired edition? One Bible Only? P.90.The word translated strain at (diulizo) is used here only in the whole of Scripture. In the 15th century it meant tochoke over/ to gag at. It never meant to strive for and doesnt mean to strain out. The Pharisees would chokeover things of little consequence but would swallow the more serious things without demur. F F Bruce tells usthat Vine, in his dictionary, relied on the definitions of Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baurall of themunbelieving rationalists. So Vine falsely renders the word in question.Now we see the degree to which Bible critics will go to attack Gods Book. They reveal an innate hostility to the

30


8/31

truth. The Mistake is with the critic. There are no errors in the Bible, so these men must invent them.Matthew 24: 14

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all (holos= complete; altogether; every whit) the world for a

witness unto all the nations and then shall the end come.

And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, JND

Note that when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (Lk. 2: 1) the Greek word holos

was not used. The decree did not apply outside the Roman Empire.JND changed the meaning ofholos to not all, but part of He did this in many places where holos is used... He made these

changes without any authority but his own.

The only place where habitable occurs in the AV Bible is Prov. 8: 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;

Some men live in parts of the world regarded as uninhabitable. Darby will not have these to be evangelised.

Who now decides which parts of the earth are habitable? The answer: The United Nations Division for Sustainable

DevelopmentAgenda 21. The object of this is to bring the habitable earth under the control of a ruling elite. This is why

we are seeing the Global Warming lobby gaining strength.

We also see the religious side of the One Ruler for the World growing also.

This is what the Bah's have to say about it:-

The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established.

Bah'u'llh (1817-1892)

The successful execution of the programmes enunciated in Agenda 21 will greatly depend on the willingness of the peoples

and nations of the world to recognise the vital link between global transformation and spiritual principles. In the Bah'

view, "the storm battering at the foundation of society will not be stilled unless and until spiritual principles are actively

engaged in the search for solutions." Primary among the spiritual principles which must guide the systematic

implementation of Agenda 21 is the oneness of humanity. It is this cardinal principle that Bah's believe will provide the

spiritual, moral and ethical underpinnings for the successful translation of Agenda 21 into practical action in all parts of theworld and at all levels of human society.

Now we see what JND started with his mischievous mutilations of Scripture. Scofield latched on to this with his inhabited

earth footnotes. (See Lk. 2: 1). Some may conclude that the Doctrine of Sustainable Land Development is God-given. But

what spirit was really behind JND in his translation?

Some information above is gleaned from libertytothecaptives.net

Matthew 24: 36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Some modern versions, following a handful of Alexandrian mss, interpolate nor the son after not the angels ofheaven. The majority of manuscripts do not have this phrase in Matthew. Neither the Son is found, correctly, inthe parallel passage, Mark 13: 32The practice of the critics is to reject what they do not understand, and Ehrman goes to great lengths trying toexplain why the copyists did not include /exclude both phrases. The believer does not have to understand everyword in his Bible before he judges it to be authentic. This is rationalism. The child of God believes the word andwaits for the Holy Spirit to illumine his mind on what he reads.Matthew is the gospel of the King. Mark is the gospel of the Servant. J Moorman links the phrase in Mark withJohn 15: 15 The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. -Early manuscripts and the Authorized Version;BFT; p.72

Matthew 25: 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.It is evident that the AV translators did not regard the words everlasting and eternal as having the same meaningand interchangeable. The two words in the same sentence are sufficient proof of this. We do not believe that

31


9/31

English words were used indiscriminately by the translators, as some suggest. They were well aware, of course,that they were translating one Greek word, aionios. We learn as we read our Bible with a believing mind, thataionios has two meanings which are not identical and cannot be interchanged. The Spirit of God led ourtranslators to see this. (I am not implying that the AV was a newly inspired book).God is eternal; without beginning and without end. We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. Thisis the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20). The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Thebeliever, being in Christ,receives that eternal life which is the life of Christ imparted. From the moment of conversion ones new life

begins and it is therefore everlasting life.Underneath are the everlasting arms. God doesnt have eternal arms, but from the time men needed them theywere there.Matthew 26:6-13....A woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment....(Also see Mk.14:1-9, Lk.7:36-50, Jn.12:1-9).

There appears in all four Gospels an account of a woman pouring an ointment on the Lord. The careless readerconcludes that the same event is being referred to in all four gospels. A careful comparison reveals threeseparate occasions when a woman approached the Lord with ointment.The first time was during the Lord's Galilean Ministry, recorded for us by Luke. We learn from v.24 that John the

Baptist was still alive so this happened quite early in the Lord's public ministry.The second time was six days before the Passover, recorded by John. It was the day before the Lord rode intoJerusalem seated upon an ass, (12:12.) so it was at the end of the Lord's public ministry and it took place inJudea and not in Galilee.The third time was only two days before the Passover, being the same Passover recorded by John, evident inthe fact that both Matthew and Mark tell us that the disciples prepared for that supper, it being the night of Hisbetrayal. Matthew and Mark speak of that third anointing.In order to harmonize these accounts (and beware of men who want to "harmonize" the Scriptures) certaincriteria are followed by the critics. The first is that the Bible is no different from any other literary work. That is, itdoes not have any divine origin. It then follows that the writers are liable to make mistakes (no such thing asverbal inspiration) and what they did write down was largely legendary, passed on from earlier sources by word

of mouth. Then, the gospel writers allegedly copied from each other. They were therefore guilty of plagiarism!So we find in Readings in St John's Gospel; by William Temple, "He comes first to His friends at Bethany. Theymost naturally arrange a supper for Him. They do this not in their own house, but in the house of Simon theLeper (St. Mark xiv,3, only St. Mark has a wrong note of time; his chronology of Holy Week, and consequentlythat of the other two synoptists, is mistaken at several points, especially the date of the crucifixion itself. St. Johnis all through this period both referring to the Marcan record and correcting it)."Temple was a prominent apostate of his day (1881-1944). He was a one -time Archbishop of York and then ofCanterbury. (Need we say more?). We know that godless clerics could not possibly produce any spiritual work,but what is grievous is that the same wicked lies are now commonly promoted from our own platforms. The lie isthis:- Matthew and Mark say TWO days whilst John says SIX days so at least one of them has got it wrong. Howfrustrated God must be "trying to get the message across" and these gospel writers keep getting it muddled up.It is a satanic lie of course. If one does not believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture then there is no way one

will get into God's heaven. One simply is not a believer. How can a person be saved if he does not believe in theinfallible, inerrant word of God? Some are so confused over the matter that they tell us that six days might meantwo days!This subject has nothing to do with versions either. Either you believe the Bible implicitly or not at all. You cannotpick and choose what you want to believe.Now a little application. There is an interesting omission in Luke's account. The Lord did not say that the womanhad done it for His burial as the other three writers tell us. For the Lord had not up to that time spoken to Hisdisciples concerning His death. This was a poor sinful woman who came to the Saviour in simple faith anddevotion and received forgiveness of sins.

32


10/31

At the end of His ministry the Lord had spoken of His impending crucifixion, burial and resurrection. The disciplescould not grasp it but two women did. Mary, who was not a sinful woman like the woman of Luke 7, was aspiritual woman and that is why she brought her 1lb of spikenard and anointed His feet. she had appreciatedwhat lay before her Lord. It was done against His burial, the Lord said so. Four days later another woman wishedto be associated with His death so she anointed the Lord's head as Mary had anointed His feet.

Chart of Spikenard Anointings

Matt.26:6-13 Mark 14: 1-10 Luke 7: 36-50 John 12: 1-9

WHEN After two days, the lastPassover.

After two days, the last

Passover

John Baptist still alive

(v.24)

Six days before the

(last) Passover

WHERE Bethasny, house of Simonthe leper.

Bethany, house of Simonthe leper.

A Pharisees house inGalilee

Bethany, Martha serving.(by implication, her house)

WHO did it A woman A woman A woman who was asinner.

Mary, sister of Martha.

WHAT was used Very precious ointment Spikenard Ointment 1lb. Spikenard

HOW On the Lords head On the Lords head On the Lords feet, after Washing with tears and

Wiping with her hair

Anointed the Lords feetThen wiped them with

Her hair.

WHY For His burial To the burying ------------- Against His burial

VALUE For much 300 pence ------------- 300 pence

REACTION Disciples had indignation Some had indignation The Pharisees murmeredBecause she was a sinner

Judas murmered

Matthew 27: 3, 4Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, andbrought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that Ihave betrayed the innocent blood.

The word metamellomai, heretranslated repented is used only five times in the New Testament and is not theusual word for repent. Some dont like the idea of Judas repenting (though he brought forth fruit meet untorepentance) so they tell us he did no more than regret his betrayal. See Gods Word to the Nations now beingquoted by one of our leading conservative evangelists.

If it is regret here, then it must be regret in the other four places. (Matt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7: 8; Heb. 7: 21).

Matthew 27:46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say,My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?(Mark 15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with someenthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale,JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense andnever mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical GreekLexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point inthe expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek

word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time butthe condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to TimothyWe believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, thenuncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thouforsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptableone.The words from the cross are reported slightly differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is,being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereasthe words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.

33


11/31

Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives ofAshdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could notspeak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24.Not all the Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after

the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak inthe Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of theunfaithful spoke half in the language of Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagonthe fish-god.

We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen onthe back of every other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language ofthe Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions.Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. There were no more untilJohn the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say.No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it isalleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during thisperiod in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha andthe Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit.

God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare yethe way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not ofpure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time as some allege, butHebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord.There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on thecross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible,p.272. I quote,-

Several verses in the New Testament appearat first sight[my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language andthe Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and

10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably[my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrewand Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expressionAkeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."

But it doesn'tsay "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is that field is called in their propertongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the discipleswho were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the propertongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha andGolgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the articlequoted above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University ofCambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible.Emerton suggests thereprobablywas a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic,

spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic,though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on thesubject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge theBiblical testimony to the use of Hebrew?Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NTtimes. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular".There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations.Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God'sworld language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will bethe language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years

34


12/31

during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.

The mistranslation of Mtt.27: 45, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? to read ...why didst thouforsake me? has led to a more serious error. It is being taught that in the hours of darkness on the cross Christpaid the penalty of our sins.So we have stated at a conference In those hours of darkness Christ paid the price of our sins, and paid it all.

(Easter conference, Basingstoke, 2004). In which case Christ did not die for our sins; the penalty had beenmeted out while He yet lived. This false teaching now gaining ground among the Brethren destroys thefoundation of our faith. It is based upon the perversion of Scripture made popular by Darby, Tregelles, and VineWe are not told what took place during the hours of darkness. God hid from the eyes of the world the agonies ofthe suffering Saviour during those three hours. We understand therefore that God does not wish us to know whattranspired then between Father and Son. We can but believe it was that He who knew no sin should be madesin. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, and Gods wrath against sin fell upon Him then. He cameunder Gods judgment for our sin, as He became our sin-bearer. So He made the awful cry, My God, my God,why hast thou forsaken me. And then He died. In His death He paid the price of our redemption. Six times weread in the New Testament that Christ died. He died for the ungodly; He died for us; He died for all.We are reminded also that without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb. 9: 22). This verse is seldom quoted

accurately. We have heard it said that God guided the hand that threw the spear that pierced the Saviours side,somit was the Roman spear drew forth the atoning blood.Gods redeeming work did not depend on the actions of an ungodly Roman soldier. The Lord was already deadand His work completed when His side was pierced. Neither was it the cross that caused His death, because Hehad power to lay down His own life. Some have suggested that the Lord died of a broken heart.

The act of killing a man is, in the Old Testament, described as the shedding of blood,Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (Gen. 9: 6). It was not necessary that the victimsblood should flow from his body. The expression is used frequently in the Scriptures

Matthew 28: 19Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This should read into the name, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God saysP. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers;1873.Well of course, the preposition is eis which is commonly translated into. but he doesnt let his readers know that20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including in. Should we read He came and dwelt into(eis) a city called Nazareth?Schaffs change is governed by his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God.Many still follow this pernicious error.Mark 1:2As it is written in the prophets.This verse is followed by two quotations, one from Malachi, and the other from Isaiah. Textual critics tell us that

the original reading was "as it is written in Isaiah", and that "someone, who recognized that the citation was acollation from two prophets, simply 'corrected' the text". The original writer was Mark. Thus modern scholarsregard Mark as stupid, ignorant of OT Scripture, and not Spirit-led. They also show themselves to be apostate,not believing in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, or else they believe that the Holy Spirit directed Mark to writelies, if indeed they believe that Mark wrote Mark 's Gospel in the first place. The modern versions all carry the lie,from JND's New Translation; the RV and onwards. Notice also how JND (with most modern versions) omits"without a cause" from Mat.5:22, thereby charging the Lord with sin. See Mk.3:5Mark 1:12 (see Mtt.4:1)Mark 6:20

35


13/31

For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him: and when heheard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.This is a much mutilated verse in the modern versions. The NIV reads "Because Herod feared John andprotected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled,yet he liked to listen to him".The AV Translators knew what the simplest Bible reader is able to grasp, that Herod certainly did not protect

John but allowed the scheming and vile Herodias to have him beheaded. Of course, the Translators also knewthat the word for "observed" may be translated as "protected" or "kept him (safe)" but as it plainly cannot meanthat in this context, they relegated that translation to the margin. The meaning is brought out in Luke 2:19, wherethe same Greek word is used, Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. That is what Heroddid with John. What a pity our critics didn't notice this verse. Scripture is its own interpreter. The NIV tells us thatMary treasured up all these things. As the critics complain about inconsistencies so-called in the AV translationperhaps they might have been consistent themselves and have Herod treasuring up John. But they cannot bearthe thought of Herod actually understanding what John was saying to him. That is because no modern criticunderstands the truths of Scripture and they assume that therefore no other of their ilk could understand it either.So they have Herod puzzled instead of doing many things. This time the alteration is not a matter of translationbut of a different Greek text. The critics have changed the original Greek word. Only a few ancient mss. supportthe modern reading and the vast majority of mss. support the AV (as always!). So what are the "many things"that Herod did? If you cannot tell us, say the critics, that proves the AV is wrong. Everything has to be explained

away to these dark-minded rationalists. The Scripture doesn't tell us what these many things were that Herod didand that is enough for any Bible believer. But what that man did was as a result of hearing John's preaching,which was essentially a message of repentance. The wretched man presumably started trying to put his life rightbut he had left it too late. One other thing, you do not listen gladly to a man you cannot understand. That aloneshows us the nonsense of modern translations.James White is one of those who mutilate Scripture, as he writes in his book, The King James only Controversy,concerning Mark 6:20. "The Greek term simply does not mean 'observe' but instead means 'to protect'". Wehave shown that to be false, simply by looking in a concordance. The title of his book is misleading. He teachesthat there is a cult that will not read, use , or recognize any bible apart from the AV. Then he proceeds to knockdown his straw man. I have never met any such people, for those who know that the AV is the word of God forEnglish speaking believers know perfectly well that the same Scriptures have been accurately translated into allthe major languages of the world. And the "controversy" is with those who deny that God could possibly preserve

his word for all generations.Therefore Mr, White has to corrupt Ps.12:6,7. He says, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve themfrom this generation for ever should really be "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever." What people does Mr White wish to be protected from? They can only be the godly and faithful of v.1. Hegives no reasons at all for the change, only that Ps.12 doesn't mention the "King James Version of the Bible",and, "nowhere does this passage tell us how God will preserve His words". So therefore He can't, according toMr White. Any believer knows how God has preserved His words. The unbeliever thinks he can meddle withScripture as he will. This whole book is an attack, not merely on the AV, but on the integrity of Holy Spirit givenScripture.How has Scripture been preserved? By the faithful copying of faithful men, a work overseen by the Holy Spirit ofGod.

Mark 9: 42And whosoever shall offend one ofthese little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstonewere hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Darby puts in me in square brackets, indicating his objection to these words and casting doubt on theirgenuineness. They have indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modernversions, notably the NASV.The manuscript evidence in favour of in me is massive. Their removal is therefore malicious. To some itmatters not what is believed as long as one does not believe in Christ.What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex Vaticanus omits in me while its twin pillar of the critical

36


14/31

Text has thrown out these words.

Mark 10: 21. And come, take up the cross, and follow me.The NIV reads .then come, follow me. There is no need to take up the cross. The Nestle-Aland Greek Textremoves it as it is not found in the Greek Mss Aleph B C Delta Theta Psi 0274 and a handful of cursives. Thereis strong ms evidence for its inclusion.

The cross remains an offence and they are the liberal neo-evangelicals who object to discipleship and thuspromote the modern versions, which will remove the cross.Mark 10: 24Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.

The NIV reads: Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God.Worse than this, the CEV has So Jesus told them again, Its terribly hard to get into Gods kingdom.Sinking lower, the Message [form hell?] has Jesus kept on: you cant imagine how difficult.The implication is that possession of wealth is a sufficient obstacle to entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Butthe Lord taught that trust in riches was the hindrance. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.These modern versions suggest that self effort and works are required in order to gain salvation. Thusrepentance toward God and faith in the shed blood of Christ are denied.

Friendship with the world is enmity with God.What is in the world? Religion for one thing. Beware of this worlds religions Some of our brethren are all pallywith Rome. They go into its schools and share the gospel with them. So their mouths are shut as far as truth isconcerned. They dare not tell the students of the once and for all sacrifice for sin by Christ on the cross. Theydare not denounce any of the wicked blasphemous doctrines of popery. They tell us it is not their business topass judgments, only to preach the gospel. What gospel is this that denies Christ? What they really want is thepraise of men.

The modern gospel states all you have to do to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The chiefrulers, we read in John 12, believed on Him. But they were not saved as the passage reveals (v42,43). Thepraise of men was all\ important to them. The Lord warned that which is highly esteemed among men is

abominatio0n in the sight of God (Luke 16: 15). Anything whatsoever it is, however apparently moral andlegitimate, having the approval of this world, is loathsome to our God.So the gospel preacher returns from his visit to the school and reports how well he was received by its staff andpupils. Note 1 Thess. 2: 6, Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you.

Mark 10:29 30And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, orsisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shallreceive an hundredfold"Or wife", the critics tell us, was never in the original. They were added to the Greek text by a later copyist. Theyare quite dogmatic about it. There is no room for alternative views. "Or wife" has so little manuscript support,they insist, that it is not even mentioned in the extensive footnotes of the UBS's definitive Greek New Testament,Fourth Revised Edition (1994). Fourth edition? What about the first three editions then? Have they only nowdecided to ignore the words? What about the fifth edition, will they pop back in again? Or maybe in the sixth?There is no end to their Darwinian fantasy.Were the AV translators inconsistent when they put in these words, forgetting what they had put in 1 Corinthians9:4? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles? Did they forget that Peter hadapparently not left his wife? Mt.8:14. So when he said, we have left all, Peter certainly never had it in his mindthat he had left his wife to follow the Lord.Should they not have paid heed to the fact that some foolish copyist had slipped in "or wife" because of Peter'swords? We can't think why any one would wish to add words that were not in the original unless it should be

37


15/31

some person who could see that by becoming a missionary one could escape a nagging wife as well asescaping from all other domestic responsibilities.But we have great difficulty in treating the AV translators as ignoramuses. They were not. They understood whatthe Lord meant by leaving. By wresting "or wife" from Holy Writ, these modern mutilators of Scripture show thatthey do not grasp the spiritual significance of the Lord's words. The Lord never taught that by following Him onecould forsake his responsibilities to home, wife and family.

We believe the Lord certainly did say "or wife". The evidence is there. The words are present in the majority ofmss. They are also present in Luke 18:29, though a few mss change the order of the words.So what did the Lord mean? Firstly the Lord was not giving a commandment; thou shalt leave. He said,"There is no man that hath left. Thus the reasons for the action are left open. Peter had proclaimed that hehad left all to follow the Lord. But the Lord is no man's debtor. There is reward to such. There is no sacrifice sogreat that the Lord cannot reward for it both now and in eternity.

Mark 13: 14

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not

Modern versions omit spoken of by Daniel the prophet. They together (including the RV and JND) attack the integrity of

the book of Daniel. The authority for these words in Mark is overwhelming. Daniel described an event yet future, and from

the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a

thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12: 11)A denial of the prophecies of Daniel is apostasy. Suggestions that this prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 are based on

unbelief.

Mark 15:34 (see Mat.27:46)

Mark 16:16but he that believeth not shall be damned.We can understand why apostate critics gnash at the Scriptures and tear out whole passages when they readwords such as these. Some tell us that vv.9-20 of Mark 16 should be omitted from Scripture. But the evidence fortheir inclusion is overwhelming. Even the AV critic, J N Darby, wrote, "I do not enter on the question of theauthenticity of verses 9-20 here. I read them as Scripture. Burgon has pretty well demolished the authorities [he

meant the perverted mss] against them". However, he did not like the word "damned" so he changed it to"condemned", keeping in line with most modern versions. When we demur at this change we are told "don't youappreciate that the AV translates katakrino as "condemned" in every other instance but one?". "Yes", we reply,"we also have a concordance. But have YE not read he that believeth not is condemned already? Jn.3:18". Butthat should read "judged already", say the critics. That change also is seen as false because the judgment ofunbelievers is reserved until that great day of Judgment at the Great White Throne (Rev.20:13). God does not

judge twice for the same offence, as the modern versionists would have it.God's order is this; all are condemned from birth by unbelief, for none was ever born a believer, and all are to berighteously judged for unbelief AND FOR EVERY ACT OF SIN at that final assize, unless refuge is sought at theCross. The unbeliever, refusing Christ, will be damned eternally at that coming day. Men do not like the worddamned because they know what it means, and that is why Satan has placed the word on the tongue ofunbelievers as a daily invective in order to take the sting out of it. For the same reason he has introduced "hell"as an oath on the lips of the ungodly. So our coy bible teachers will "prefer" hades to hell.To be damned is to be eternally ruined yet never annihilated in the everlasting flames of the Lake of Fire. And ifthey are figurative flames as some of our unbelieving critics tell us, then whatever must the reality be like?Luke 2: 7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in amanger; because there was no room for them in the inn (kataluma).There is no reason to reject the traditional understanding of this passage. There are no problems with the text(i.e. underlying Greek text) or the translation. But some are teaching that the Lord was born in an open field

38


16/31

thereby negating the prophecy of Micah 5: 2, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among thethousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forthhave been from of old, from everlasting. This prophecy relates to the birth of Christ, indicating that the birthwould take place within Bethlehem.We do not believe there were open fields within Bethlehems bounds. The critics deny that kataluma could haveanything to do with a stable because the word is translated Guestchamber in Mk.14: 14 and Luke 22: 11.Those who make a play of the Greek word kataluma show their distrust of the English Bible where we read theword inn. Inn is a satisfactory translation.

Inns in New Testament times were places for the traveller to rest. Like modern inns they usually had parkingplaces for the travellers vehicle; then it would be a stable at the base of the inn where the vehicle (an ass) mightbe parked overnight. It would need refuelling and a separate charge was usually made to the traveller forprovender (hay) provided. Thus a manger was provided. (See Life in New Testament Times; A C Bouquet.)We would hardly expect to find a manger in an open field. Would not the sheep just eat the grass? Why wouldthey need a manger?Luke 2: 14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.

B Osborne, in the neo-evangelical magazine Precious Seed(Vol. 60, No.3, p.2), writes;

Peace on earth, goodwill to all men. That was the message of the angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem.

But the coming of Jesus did not bring peace on earth and wars have raged throughout history since then.And goodwill to all men? What of the industrial strife, disputes, family discords, church divisions?

We do not know where Osborne found this quaint reading. It is certainly not AV, neither did I manage to locate itin the 30 or so versions that I checked. He goes on to quote the NIV and several other parodies of Scripture thathappen to agree with the NIV. He seems unaware that these have all trotted out from the same Westcott andHort stable. These tell us it is Peace on earth among men on whom His favour rests. This can mean only onething Christ came only for the favoured few. What caused some to be among the favoured few? Osborne tellsus they are those who receive His life. So Christ died only for those He knew would later receive his life!

We note that Gods goodwill is removed by the modern versions and replaced by the goodwill of men. Robertsonshows that they are the usual Alexandrian mss that make the alteration

Among men in whom he is well pleased (en anthro pois eudokias). The Textus Receptus (Authorized

Version also has eudokia, but the genitive eudokias is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest andbest uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here. Robertsons word Pictures.

We believe the TR to be correct, supported as it is by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. Those whodeny it fail to grasp the message of the angels. There will be complete peace on earth in the ultimate fulfilment ofthe angelic pronouncement.Of course there is peace on earth now. It is available individually through faith in Christ to a whole human racealienated by wicked works. This alteration by the critics is therefore a doctrinal change. It denies the doctrine ofsalvation, denies the millennial reign of Christ, and supports Reformed Theology.

Luke 2:22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they broughthim to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord;Modern versions read "their purification" because, they tell us, that is what the Greek says. It matters not whatLev.12 says concerning the woman alone being required to make purification. They care nothing that Joseph istherefore regarded as the father of the child, and that all the family was unclean and needing purification. Theyare not concerned that Scripture is made to contradict itself and that they show themselves to be unbelievers.Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (Jn.5:46). To say that there is no Greektext for the singular reading is false because the TBS published one, and Scrivener, who was on the RVcommittee, published his in1881. I have my copies in front of me.

Luke 2: 33, 48And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. (v.33)

39


17/31

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealtwith us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (v.48)

It is important to notice first that verse 33 is Lukes commentary, written under the inspiration of God. Verse 48 isa report of Marys words, spoken at a time of deep stress, also given by inspiration of God.

Ehrman writes concerning these verses

Joseph is called Jesus' father twice in Luke's birth narrative (2:33, 48). In both instances scribes havemodified the text to eliminate what must have appeared incongruous with the firmly entrenched notion thatalthough Joseph was Mary's betrothed, he was not the father of Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:33 states that Jesus'"father and mother began to marvel" at the things being said about him. The majority of Greek manuscripts,however, along with a number of Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic witnesses, have changed the text to read"Joseph and his mother began to marvel." The change makes perfect sense, given the orthodox view thatJoseph was in fact not Jesus' father. There can be little doubt that in this case the majority text represents acorruption rather than the original reading: a wide range of early and superior manuscripts consistently givethe reading that is also more difficult. The wide attestation of the variant reading and the confluence ofancient versions in its support, however, do show that the text had been changed relatively early in thehistory of its transmission, at least in the third century and more likely in the secondprecisely during thetime of the adoptionist controversies.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is to Ehrman no more than a firmly entrenched notion. He regards it as the viewthat had become popular by the second or third century. Therefore scribes altered the earlier manuscriptswhich spoke of the father and mother of the Lord, to accommodate the prevailing view. Ehrmans views arebased on the doctrine that earliest is best. The older a manuscript, the more faithful it is. He acknowledges thatthe majority of witnesses carry the words we find in the received text. He fails to point out Tatian, one of the earlyfathers, also quotes the received text! But all of this he writes off as a corruption rather than the original text.Many sound scholars have shown why the few apparently early texts are false. The early church rejected them.They were discarded early on only to be rediscovered around the 19 th century. The true manuscripts wererepeatedly copied as they became worn out and so quite obviously only later copies remain available.

It is worth noting that the child Jesus corrected his mothers slip by replying How is it that ye sought me? Wistye not that I must be about my Fathers business? (v.49) His Father is the Father in Heaven and no other. Ifnot then there was no Christ and no Saviour. He would not have been able to confess I am the truth.

Christianity collapses and we would be forced to conclude that God also is a figment of our imagination andmaybe we ourselves do not actually exist.

Luke 2:40, 52And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.These verses appear much the same in all the versions that I looked at, including the pernicious JW bible. Noneof them changed the word "wisdom". One is astounded therefore to read in Foundations; Issue No.42; Spring1999, published by the British Evangelical Council, the following statement: "It is clear that Christ did not call onhis divine knowledge to inform his human mind. So, for example, he grew in knowledge [my italics], Luke2:40,52."So the Scripture is flagrantly mutilated in order to promote a blasphemy, that the Lord was not omniscient. Partialomniscience is a nonsense as is temporary omniscience. Omniscience is an attribute of deity and if ALLknowledge was not at all times held in that perfect holy human mind then His deity is defective. So would be Hishuman personality. It is folly to speak of the ignorance associated with His human nature, while He remainedomniscient in His divine nature. Christ proclaimed neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son. Mat.11:27.This must be the supreme knowledge. It must mean also that what is known to the Father is known by the Son.We are also told of Jesus, knowing all things, Jn.18:4.Unbelievers and rationalists will seize upon Mark 13:32 to prove the limitations of Christ. But of that day and thathour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

40


18/31

Unless we think (in our ignorance) that there are contradictions in Scripture, then we must look for anotherexplanation. It is that in His role as Son of Man, it was not given to Him of the Father to reveal such knowledge.He said to His disciples, It is not for you to know the times and the seasons. Acts 1:7.What of His growth in wisdom? Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which hesuffered. Heb.5:8. It was a learning through human experience, by which the Lord grew in wisdom.Luke 2:49

And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Fathersbusiness?The RSV changes this to, Did you not know I must be in my Fathers house? The Greek word for house, oikos,is not found here, as it is in John 2:16, where we read, make not my Fathers house an house of merchandise.Thus the emphasis in Luke is not on the house, but on the affairs of the Father. The Lords words indicate Hisdeity. He is the Son who has come from the Father to conduct His affairs on earth.When the Lord said In my Fathers house there are many mansions, (John 14: 1), He was clearly referring toheaven and not to the earthly temple. This temple was desecrated and Judaism was godless. Neither was Heinforming Mary and Joseph, at the age of twelve, that He ought to be in heaven. The words in my Fathersbusiness satisfactorily translate en tois tou patros mou.The RSV and other modern versions making this change rob Christ of His deity.

Luke 9: 31Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.The RSV replaces decease with departure. This is unnecessary as the word decease originally included thesense of departure. This is another word, which has been redefined to mean death onlyand by implication,extinction.The AV translators might have left the word in an anglicised formexodus, but they didnt. The Lord wasspeaking of his death at Jerusalem. The verse tells us so. But believers know that Christ rose again and willreign in glory in His kingdom.Peter used the same word concerning himself (2 Peter 1: 15).

Luke 14: 5

Which of you shall have an assor an ox fallen into a pit.

Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well WV

Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well NIrV

Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well ESV

Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament;

Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place ofonos (ass)

Bible students will need to be wary of commentaries that are based on corrupt readings. TheBible Knowledge Commentary

attributes error to the Lord Jesus, by having Him say He (Christ) said that the guests would help a son or an ox in distress

on the Sabbath, so it was totally appropriate to heal this poor individual. BKC; J Walvoord and B Zuck.This reduces the Lords charge against the lawyers and Pharisees to mere gentle chiding, whereas the Lord was exposing the

hypocrisy of these God haters. Compare Lk. 13: 15.

Luke 16:22,23The rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,The average man in the street knows what is meant by hell. He knows it is a place beyond the grave for thegodless and the profane and that is why it is an expletive commonly upon his lips. Satan has done his best totake the sting out of it.Religionists and modern versionists have helped to this end. We find an early amendment in the 1879 edition ofWycliffes New Testament. Wycliffe wrote and the riche man was deed also, and was biried in helle. And hereseide hise i3en, whanne he was in turmentis, but in the glossary at the end of the book we find thisinterpretation given:

41


19/31

helle, s, grave, Lk.xvi.23.It will require a fantastic faith to believe that this rich mans rotting corpse was placed in the (physical) grave andthen all of a sudden it opened its eyes, being in torments, and cried out I am tormented in this flame! Hell isnot the grave. The rich mans body was buried in a grave, but his soul was buried in hell.Some have taught that hell (Greek hades, Hebrew sheol) was the place to which all departed spirits went untilChrist came. So says J N Darby,Hades like Sheol .is a very vague expression used in general to designate the temporary state of departed

spirits, the unseen or invisible world of spirits, upon which, till the coming of Christ, darkness and obscurityrested, as may be seen in the Old Testament. It is applied to Christ, who went into paradise, and to the rich manin Luke 16, who found himself in torment. New Translation; fn to Mt.11:23.Darby therefore would not translate hades but left the word in its anglicized form. Likewise the RV.Psalm 9:17 tells us, The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. This verse issufficient to assure us that believers do not and never did get put into hell, otherwise the verse is meaningless.David anticipated heaven, for he wrote But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave [sheol], for heshall receive me. Ps.49:15. Jacob thought he might go down into sheol at death (Gen.37:35), but this doesntmean that he did. The teaching that Christ descended into hell at His death is heretical.Grave in the O T translates five different Hebrew words, the commonest for the physical grave being keh-ver,and for hell it is sheol. The context usually reveals whether grave stands for the burying place of the body,or the place where the soul is buried. The grave in the N T is always the burying place of the body.

Gehenna is translated hell in the N T but is not synonymous with hades as the words of the Lord show. Mt.5:29reads, the whole body should be cast into hell, and Mt.10:28 reads fear him which is able to destroy both souland body in hell. The body is placed in an earthly grave while the soul is consigned to hell (hades). ThusGehenna is a picture of the Lake of Fire, Rev.20:14 into which, in that awful coming day, death (the body) andhell (the soul) shall be cast.Luke 23:15No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.'D.G.' writes in a Christian magazine, 'Note these last three words, 'done unto Him'. They are a mistakentranslation. the correct rendering of the Greek would be 'done by Him'. Greek grammar puts the matter beyonddoubt;.....All modern translations (including .N.Darby's) agree that the AV's translation is mistaken here. How its

translators came to make what is such an elementary mistake in Greek grammar we shall never know.'There were eight scholars responsible for the AV translation of Luke's gospel. This is what A McCure tells us ofthem in his book, Translators Revived :-HENRY SAVILE: Tutor in Greek and Maths to Elizabeth I. He became famous for his mathematical learning.Later made Warden of Merton College.JOHN HARMER: King's professor of Greek; Headmaster of Winchester School for 9 years; Warden of hiscollege for 17 years.JOHN AGLIONBY: Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. An excellent linguist.LEONARD HUTTON: Known as an excellent Grecian, well versed in the learned languages.

GEORGE ABBOT: Entered Balliol College, Oxford at age of fourteen. Fellow at age of twenty one.We are to understand that eight men, each of them of outstanding ability in the field of linguistics, and workingtogether on the AV translation all made the same 'elementary mistake'! Not one of them spotted it. Neither didthe other teams of academics as they cross checked each others' work. If 'D.G.'s (David Gooding's) academicattainments are not higher than those achieved by the men of the AV, then we trust that we shall never hear ofhim again. We must assume that he is also as fluent in Greek and several other languages as he is in his mothertongue, because they were.But 'D. G.' is wrong. He has misunderstood the passage and appears only to be looking for opportunity to decrythe translation that God has mightily blessed since 1611.

42


20/31

I am not a Greek student. All I can do is look in my Wenham's and note that auto means to him. It is auto inevery Greek ms. If some then tell us that there is an unusual grammatical construction in this verse, we point outthat it was well enough known in 1611. So if we keep to the AV translation, what does it mean? NormanCrawford explains the verse precisely, '[Pilate] sent Christ to Herod and no sentence of death was pronouncedby the Tetrarch.' What the Bible Teaches; Vol.7. That is, Herod did not do anything with the Lord that wouldrequire the death sentence to be passed. That was the amazing thing! So Pilate said in that case he would justchastise the Lord and let Him go (v.16).

If we accept 'D.G.'s translation, 'I sent you to Him [sic]; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done by Him', we wouldunderstand that Pilate had sent the chief priests and rulers to Herod, and amazingly, Christ did not do anythingin front of Herod to warrant death. Pilate was already well aware that the Lord was not guilty of any offence. Hedid not need Herod to tell him that. He hoped that the evil Herod would destroy Him anyway. But Herod did noteven put the Lord on trial.And do 'all modern translations agree that the AV is wrong here'? That statement is not justified by examination.Here is what one modern version says: 'No, nor Herod neither. For I sent you to him, and behold nothing worthyof death is done to him'. The Layman's New Testament; Sheed and Ward; 1927.Those who attack the AV often make sweeping statements without bothering to check the evidence.

Luke 23 : 33

....the place, which is called Calvary, ....

Kranion, translated Calvary in Luke is skull in Mtt. 27: 33 and Mark 15: 22. a place called Golgotha, that is tosay, a place of a skull. Golgotha is of `Hebrew origin. Note John 19: 17, the place of a skull, which is calledin the Hebrew Golgotha. It is not a Chaldee word as lexicons will inform us. (Trust the Bible!)Why did the AV translators use the word Calvary in Luke? The answer is simple. They used the latin wordcalvaria which means skull. They did not wish to use the Hebrew Golgotha to translate a Greek word for Englishreaders.They anglicised calvaria to give us Calvary. It is not a Roman Catholic word as some mischievously suggest.The English language is full of latin words (together with words drawn from a multitude of other languages). Nofault can be found in reading Calvary at Luke 23: 33.John 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.Also see Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons ofGod. 1.John.3:1Some are telling us that John never spoke of believers as being the sons of God. The above two verses showthat he did, using two different words, uios and teknon. However, they say that the Greek word uios (son) is atitle that John reserved solely for the Son of God. However, we note that the word is used in 1:42,4:5,12,46,47,50,53, 9:19,20, 12:36, and 17:12 without reference to the Lord. The word uios may be equallytranslated child, Acts 13:10; children, John 4:12 etc. It is in his first two epistles that John reserves the title for theSon of God.So we find in modern versions the phrase "sons of God" being changed to "children of God". The difference, weare told, is that as children we are introduced into the family of God, and as sons we enjoy the dignity, heirship,and the spiritual blessing of being able to use the title Father in addressing God. All of which we do not dispute.

But this does not give licence to alter the word of God. The AV reading is found in the Geneva Bible and otherearly translations. The AV translators saw no need for any change though they carefully considered the phrase.This is really another case of altering the Bible to fit one's theology. So I do believe that when I received Christ,and believed on His name as the Scripture instructed me, I then became one of the sons of God. That is whatmy Bible says. That is what has been held to for centuries, and I don't believe there is any need to change itnow.Why not also change Rom.8:14,19 to read children of God? Why do modern versions not make the changehere? The same Greek words are involved. The reason is a theological interpretation is being made, rather thana formal translation.

43


21/31

John 1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hathdeclared him.Wycliffe, having only the Latin Vulgate for his translation in 1380, wrote, no man sai euer God, no but the oonbigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out. The Vulgate reads, Deum nemo vidit unquam,unigentius filius, qui est in sinus patris, ipse enarravit. Oon bigetun sone = unigentius filius = the only begottenSon.

These are all formally equivalent translations of the Greek verse as it appears in the Received Text. Tyndalesreading is identical to the AV excepting that he has a full-stop after time, and not a semi-colon.The weight of evidence for the RT reading is massive. In which case one might wonder why the NASV reads,No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explainedHim. J Moorman writes.This is the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of intermediary gods. It is the trademark of corruption inthe early Egyptian manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others. Early Manuscripts and theAuthorized Version.E F Hills draws our attention to the source of this error in his book Believing Bible Study,Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely Valentinus. Burgon

pointed out that the first time John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines ofValentinus. . What could be more probable than Dean Burgons suggestion that Valentinus fabricated thisreading by changing the only begotten Son to the only begotten God.? His motive for doing so would be hisapparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos).Valentinus may have been the perpetrator of the Egyptian Papyrus 75 which has this reading. This P75 was notused by Jerome as far as Jn.1:18 is concerned when he revised the Old Latin Bible in 382 AD. It is Jeromesrevision that became known as the Latin Vulgate. If Wycliffe knew of P75, he chose not to use it either. Tyndaleand the AV translators knew about this alternative and rejected it. The NASV chose to use it.There are no grounds for omitting the word begotten. It speaks of the intimate relationship that ever existed andcontinues to exist between the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son, the One ever in the bosom of the Father.Wycliffe kept begotten and so did Westcott and Hort.

Hills points out that those who insist that begotten should always be omitted need to consider John 1:14, whichthey would be compelled to translate as we have beheld his glory, glory as of an only from the Father. That isnonsensical so they add the word Son without any authority whatsoever.John 1: 28These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.Modern versions deny that these things were done in Bethabara. Th

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ron-smith
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

23039232 AV Verses Matt to Acts to 59

Documents