Monday, May 25, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Theological Rubbish
Traditionally (I hate 99% of traditions, to be honest), there are two viewpoints as far as "Theology" goes. You have "Reformed" doctrine on one side, with the other bearing the moniker of "Armenianism," though Reformed is just a fancy name for Calvinism. Most people view these two theologies as all that exist in Christianity, but to counteract a basic lack of knowledge on this issue, I'm going to give a basic overview of what these doctrines teach and what's wrong with them, as well as what the Bible truly says about this issue.
Calvinism
Hard-core Calvinism or Reformed Theology is summed up in the acronym "TULIP." Also known as "Five point Calvinism," TULIP theology teaches the "Total Depravity" of mankind, "Unconditional Election" of those destined or chosen to be saved, "Limited Atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice was only for the "Elect," "Irresistible Grace" or that the Elect cannot refuse the drawing power of the Spirit, and "Perseverance of the Saints," which means (in its purest form) that those that are saved will retain their salvation through holy living.
While these doctrines seem harmless on the surface, they are dangerous and unbiblical when studied closely. For instance, while "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," Jesus said that He would draw all men unto Him if He were lifted up. Simply put, Total Depravity is unbiblical, in that God has placed many things in this world to draw the attention of the lost who have never even heard of God or Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:20).
Also, Perseverance of the Saints is not Biblical Eternal Security by any stretch of the imagination; contrariwise, this doctrine teaches that while salvation can be lost, the "Elect" will always regain their salvation and invariably go to Heaven when they die. This is incredibly unbiblical, and though some that hold to Reformed theology no longer believe this, instead adopting true Eternal Security, this is the doctrine that Calvin taught and is held by those that truly agree with fundamental Calvinism.
Armenianism
Armenianism is very similar to Calvinism except that where Calvinists believe certain people are chosen to go to Heaven, Armenianists believe that God's election is conditional upon faith, and while Reformed theology teaches an invariable return to salvation, Armenianism states that salvation is dependent upon continued holy living, and that those that are saved can actually go to hell.
Of course the biggest problem with this view according to the word of God is that the Bible clearly teaches that once someone in the age of Grace (i.e. Church Age) accepts Christ as his saviour, he is permanently and irreversibly saved. Our sanctification is not based upon our continued clean living, but on Jesus Christ's perfect life. We are perfected in the spirit through His blood, and neither obtaining nor retaining salvation has anything to do with our works.
Biblical Theology
The doctrines of the Bible on salvation are very clear, so it is somewhat perplexing as to how men such as Calvin came up with such ludicrous ideas. The Bible clearly teaches that God created man with a free will and the ability to choose, and that while man almost invariably makes the wrong choice, God always gives him a chance to make that choice. From Adam through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, each one had a choice to make, whether to obey God or serve their own will. The concept of a free will is unarguable from any standpoint, especially a Biblical one.
Secondly, the idea of Divine Predestination is out of line. Invariably, one will find that a Calvinist must take a verse out of context or apply it incorrectly to make his doctrinal house of cards stand. While Paul declared that we as a church are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, speaking to Christians, a Calvinist will say that means that certain individuals were chosen before creation to go to Heaven, when it simply means that when a man gets saved, he is placed on a path to be made perfect like Christ.
The third and final doctrine of Calvinism which I will contrast against the Biblical position is "Perseverance of the Saints." Paul states that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, meaning that we have the seal of God on our souls, marking us as His purchased possession. Also, the entire book of Galatians deals with the theme "Kept by Grace," following up on Paul's in-depth salvation discourse to the Romans. He clearly states, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" He spends the rest of the book clearly showing how that once saved by God's grace, through no effort of our own, we are kept saved the same way: by God's grace without our interference in any way.
Simply put, the "traditional" way of looking at theology is deeply flawed. I personally think that there is too much emphasis put on "theology" and not nearly enough placed on actually believing the Bible. When one interprets the Bible through the cloudy, dingy glasses of his own theological viewpoint, he becomes a private interpreter of the Scriptures, which in reality places him in no better standing than an Atheist or the Catholic Whore as far as correct doctrine is concerned.
Calvinism
Hard-core Calvinism or Reformed Theology is summed up in the acronym "TULIP." Also known as "Five point Calvinism," TULIP theology teaches the "Total Depravity" of mankind, "Unconditional Election" of those destined or chosen to be saved, "Limited Atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice was only for the "Elect," "Irresistible Grace" or that the Elect cannot refuse the drawing power of the Spirit, and "Perseverance of the Saints," which means (in its purest form) that those that are saved will retain their salvation through holy living.
While these doctrines seem harmless on the surface, they are dangerous and unbiblical when studied closely. For instance, while "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him," Jesus said that He would draw all men unto Him if He were lifted up. Simply put, Total Depravity is unbiblical, in that God has placed many things in this world to draw the attention of the lost who have never even heard of God or Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:20).
Also, Perseverance of the Saints is not Biblical Eternal Security by any stretch of the imagination; contrariwise, this doctrine teaches that while salvation can be lost, the "Elect" will always regain their salvation and invariably go to Heaven when they die. This is incredibly unbiblical, and though some that hold to Reformed theology no longer believe this, instead adopting true Eternal Security, this is the doctrine that Calvin taught and is held by those that truly agree with fundamental Calvinism.
Armenianism
Armenianism is very similar to Calvinism except that where Calvinists believe certain people are chosen to go to Heaven, Armenianists believe that God's election is conditional upon faith, and while Reformed theology teaches an invariable return to salvation, Armenianism states that salvation is dependent upon continued holy living, and that those that are saved can actually go to hell.
Of course the biggest problem with this view according to the word of God is that the Bible clearly teaches that once someone in the age of Grace (i.e. Church Age) accepts Christ as his saviour, he is permanently and irreversibly saved. Our sanctification is not based upon our continued clean living, but on Jesus Christ's perfect life. We are perfected in the spirit through His blood, and neither obtaining nor retaining salvation has anything to do with our works.
Biblical Theology
The doctrines of the Bible on salvation are very clear, so it is somewhat perplexing as to how men such as Calvin came up with such ludicrous ideas. The Bible clearly teaches that God created man with a free will and the ability to choose, and that while man almost invariably makes the wrong choice, God always gives him a chance to make that choice. From Adam through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets, each one had a choice to make, whether to obey God or serve their own will. The concept of a free will is unarguable from any standpoint, especially a Biblical one.
Secondly, the idea of Divine Predestination is out of line. Invariably, one will find that a Calvinist must take a verse out of context or apply it incorrectly to make his doctrinal house of cards stand. While Paul declared that we as a church are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, speaking to Christians, a Calvinist will say that means that certain individuals were chosen before creation to go to Heaven, when it simply means that when a man gets saved, he is placed on a path to be made perfect like Christ.
The third and final doctrine of Calvinism which I will contrast against the Biblical position is "Perseverance of the Saints." Paul states that we are "sealed unto the day of redemption" by the Holy Spirit, meaning that we have the seal of God on our souls, marking us as His purchased possession. Also, the entire book of Galatians deals with the theme "Kept by Grace," following up on Paul's in-depth salvation discourse to the Romans. He clearly states, "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" He spends the rest of the book clearly showing how that once saved by God's grace, through no effort of our own, we are kept saved the same way: by God's grace without our interference in any way.
Simply put, the "traditional" way of looking at theology is deeply flawed. I personally think that there is too much emphasis put on "theology" and not nearly enough placed on actually believing the Bible. When one interprets the Bible through the cloudy, dingy glasses of his own theological viewpoint, he becomes a private interpreter of the Scriptures, which in reality places him in no better standing than an Atheist or the Catholic Whore as far as correct doctrine is concerned.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Love your Modern Bible Version? So does the Pope
Ouch. Yeah, sorry, that's kinda' hitting below the belt, I know. However, it's 100% true and historically accurate. You doubt? It's easily ascertained.
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Real Big Bang
The stupid little sect of "educated" idiots in this country that believes in evolution will doubtlessly think the title denotes an overbearing, fantastical account of an event that can't be proven and of which there is no evidence, but that's not the case at all. In fact, I'm just going to post some Scripture and run those little scums off right now: there's no sense in having an idiot involved in an intelligent, spiritual conversation. It would be like involving a centipede or a spinach plant in a physics discussion.
Cool, huh? This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. At that time, God really busts this place up. Let's get a little context on this occurrence.
The "same word" that this verse is talking about refers to verse 5, where it says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. So this verse says that the word of God holds in store the heavens and the earth. It also says they're reserved unto fire and judgment. What's this judgment all about?
(emphasis mine)
Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it.
"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!!
There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast.
Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." Three quarks each, to be exact. These particles have a magnetic charge which holds them together; however, this poses a serious and almost insurmountable problem for science: having three particles that are charged magnetically means that there is an imbalance of force (one negative vs. two positive), so how does an atom stay together?
Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again.
Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often.
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Cool, huh? This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. At that time, God really busts this place up. Let's get a little context on this occurrence.
2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
The "same word" that this verse is talking about refers to verse 5, where it says that by the word of God the heavens were of old. So this verse says that the word of God holds in store the heavens and the earth. It also says they're reserved unto fire and judgment. What's this judgment all about?
2Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
(emphasis mine)
Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it.
2Pet. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!!
2Pet. 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast.
Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." Three quarks each, to be exact. These particles have a magnetic charge which holds them together; however, this poses a serious and almost insurmountable problem for science: having three particles that are charged magnetically means that there is an imbalance of force (one negative vs. two positive), so how does an atom stay together?
Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again.
2Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Catholic roots of the King James Bible?
First, I must apologize for the ads in the sidebar; I use Google adsense even though I've yet to receive a penny from it, and it turns out that they put up nonsensical Catholic ads on there. Oh well, I don't mind costing some popish reprobate some extra coin in advertisement costs.
I have been repeatedly heckled by people who claim that the King James Bible is Catholic and corrupt, and in turn offer newer "Bibles" based on codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus, of all things! Of course, their first angle of attack is against some men; I will try to address that as well as possible.
Erasmus
Erasmus was the original compiler of the Textus Receptus on which every faithful translation of the Bible in any language is based. He also happened to be a Catholic monk, as was any educated person in Europe during that time period (either a Catholic clergyman or a noble). Erasmus dedicated much of his life to preparing the TR from hundreds of manuscripts in dozen of languages: he was undoubtedly one of the most educated men of his time. He also never left the Catholic church, and this is the beef that "freedom readers" have with the King James Bible: it is based on a text compiled and edited by a Catholic. Never mind that their text was illegitimately birthed by a couple of unregenerate pope-butt kissers, Erasmus and his work must be derided to undermine the authority of that Book! So yeah, Erasmus was a Catholic, but it's obvious from the way the Catholic whore ignores him and treats him in their histories that he was far from a favored son. In fact, he was all but excommunicated for his works that challenged the papal authority of Rome. Basically this attack is a total farce.
Martin Luther
Luther is the de facto father of the Protestant Reformation (if one doesn't count John Wycliffe, that is...more on him later perhaps). Again, Luther was a Catholic monk who never left the "church." His works blasted the unbiblical doctrines of the Roman whore to the point where he was excommunicated and pursued for trial as a heretic, but he never actually left Rome. Of course, his TR-based German Bible was the translation that sparked the liberation of Europe from Papal Rome, but modern authority-rejectors must strive to eradicate that Bible and those like it if they are ever going to control the laity in their Nicolaitine methods of privately interpreting the Bible.
There are others, but must we go on? Casiodora de Reina, Valera, Mora, and the translators of the Italian, Portugese, Dutch and other Bibles were almost all unfailingly Catholic monks or priests that God used (even Tyndale was!) to translate His words into different languages. Even the most ignorant honest individual would see that every major revival or move of God in this world was begun and completed under the auspices and authority of a TR-based translation of the Bible, and 1881 and the ESV saw God's movement diminish to a near indecipherable level, but it seems that modern scholarship refuses to accept such things as God's approval, and must instead appeal to humanistic reasoning to find the Scriptures for the typical dumb parishoner.
Ain't it great to be a dumb sheep that must be led around by the nose?
I have been repeatedly heckled by people who claim that the King James Bible is Catholic and corrupt, and in turn offer newer "Bibles" based on codices Siniaticus and Vaticanus, of all things! Of course, their first angle of attack is against some men; I will try to address that as well as possible.
Erasmus
Erasmus was the original compiler of the Textus Receptus on which every faithful translation of the Bible in any language is based. He also happened to be a Catholic monk, as was any educated person in Europe during that time period (either a Catholic clergyman or a noble). Erasmus dedicated much of his life to preparing the TR from hundreds of manuscripts in dozen of languages: he was undoubtedly one of the most educated men of his time. He also never left the Catholic church, and this is the beef that "freedom readers" have with the King James Bible: it is based on a text compiled and edited by a Catholic. Never mind that their text was illegitimately birthed by a couple of unregenerate pope-butt kissers, Erasmus and his work must be derided to undermine the authority of that Book! So yeah, Erasmus was a Catholic, but it's obvious from the way the Catholic whore ignores him and treats him in their histories that he was far from a favored son. In fact, he was all but excommunicated for his works that challenged the papal authority of Rome. Basically this attack is a total farce.
Martin Luther
Luther is the de facto father of the Protestant Reformation (if one doesn't count John Wycliffe, that is...more on him later perhaps). Again, Luther was a Catholic monk who never left the "church." His works blasted the unbiblical doctrines of the Roman whore to the point where he was excommunicated and pursued for trial as a heretic, but he never actually left Rome. Of course, his TR-based German Bible was the translation that sparked the liberation of Europe from Papal Rome, but modern authority-rejectors must strive to eradicate that Bible and those like it if they are ever going to control the laity in their Nicolaitine methods of privately interpreting the Bible.
There are others, but must we go on? Casiodora de Reina, Valera, Mora, and the translators of the Italian, Portugese, Dutch and other Bibles were almost all unfailingly Catholic monks or priests that God used (even Tyndale was!) to translate His words into different languages. Even the most ignorant honest individual would see that every major revival or move of God in this world was begun and completed under the auspices and authority of a TR-based translation of the Bible, and 1881 and the ESV saw God's movement diminish to a near indecipherable level, but it seems that modern scholarship refuses to accept such things as God's approval, and must instead appeal to humanistic reasoning to find the Scriptures for the typical dumb parishoner.
Ain't it great to be a dumb sheep that must be led around by the nose?
Monday, May 4, 2009
The fallacy of "Double Inspiration"
Yeah yeah, of course with a title like that you're expecting a rant against Ruckman or against the fringe King James onlyists, but you'll get none of that here. I simply want to put to rest this idea of "Double Inspiration" by defining what exactly inspiration really is. Of course I'll use nothing but a King James Bible to do it, so if you can't submit to that as your authority for the definition of the words found therein, then do yourself a favor and move your bohunkus out of the way of people who are actually trying to get something accomplished.
The word "inspiration" is used twice in the Bible, and if you're a Bible believer like I am, you'll submit the words within the Bible to Its own definition, meaning you'll put the two verses together in context and accept that meaning as factual. Can we give that a shot?
Please notice, this verse most emphatically does NOT say that all scripture is inspired: it says that all scripture is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION. If you say "the Bible is inspired," you're subjecting the words of God to your own private interpretation, contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
So here we have the other verse, and as anyone with a brain in their head can see, "inspiration" is dealing with supernatural involvement in human comprehension; i.e. the "Almighty" giving understanding through inspiration.
Therefore, when you combine the two verses, as true Bible believers should do, you'll see that all scripture (including the Bible that you claim to believe, if you really believe it) is given by the supernatural understanding given by God to men. As a result, scripture is not inspired: the men who write it are! Therefore, there's no such thing as "double inspiration," since the Bible was never inspired even once in the first place! God preserved His perfect words through the centuries and compiled them in the King James Bible in 1604-1611, but He never inspired them. He inspires the men that He uses to preserve and translate that Word.
Got a better explanation? Biblical, of course; I don't give two farts about any other kind.
The word "inspiration" is used twice in the Bible, and if you're a Bible believer like I am, you'll submit the words within the Bible to Its own definition, meaning you'll put the two verses together in context and accept that meaning as factual. Can we give that a shot?
II Timothy 3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Please notice, this verse most emphatically does NOT say that all scripture is inspired: it says that all scripture is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION. If you say "the Bible is inspired," you're subjecting the words of God to your own private interpretation, contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
Job 32:8: But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
So here we have the other verse, and as anyone with a brain in their head can see, "inspiration" is dealing with supernatural involvement in human comprehension; i.e. the "Almighty" giving understanding through inspiration.
Therefore, when you combine the two verses, as true Bible believers should do, you'll see that all scripture (including the Bible that you claim to believe, if you really believe it) is given by the supernatural understanding given by God to men. As a result, scripture is not inspired: the men who write it are! Therefore, there's no such thing as "double inspiration," since the Bible was never inspired even once in the first place! God preserved His perfect words through the centuries and compiled them in the King James Bible in 1604-1611, but He never inspired them. He inspires the men that He uses to preserve and translate that Word.
Got a better explanation? Biblical, of course; I don't give two farts about any other kind.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
"godly men"??
When dealing with the modern version issue, the names of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are almost synonymous with Textual Criticism, and for good reason: they basically single-handedly (with the Vatican's and Satan's help, of course) demolished the solid foundation of the King James Bible. Of course they didn't damage the Word or change anything as far as God's words go, but they're responsible for destroying the faith of millions in God's written words.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
