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?

Evolution? Are you nuts!?!

Besides the obvious fact that institutions of "higher learning" are breeding grounds for Evolutionist infidels, an article from FOX regarding a recent Gallup poll shows that less than 40% of Americans believe in evolution, and less than 25% of high school-educated people believe in the ridiculous nonsense.

Well, with no evidence for the "theory," no "transitional fossils" (which were a problem for Darwin and still give Evolutionists epileptic fits) and belief only in places full of educated idiots, proponents of this nonsensical pipe dream need to crawl back into their scummy little holes and suck an egg.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

This is just awesome. Blessed be the God of Shem!!

Christians for McCain?

I've often said about this election that we have a choice between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's not good odds, but there's something to be said for taking what you can get. Personally, I'd love to see Chuck Baldwin in the White House; there's just something gratifying about hearing a Presidential candidate say that Abraham Lincoln was one of this nation's worst presidents. However, In our largely Bi-partisan political climate, a vote for Baldwin is nothing less than a vote for Obama.

Sens. McCain and Obama are some of the last people I'd ever pick for my presidents, but that's what we're stuck with unfortunately. Obviously choosing the lesser of two evils still means you wind up with evil, but as Christians we have to live and operate within our system. I don't believe that Christians aren't allowed to be involved in politics or the government; far from it, in fact. If you have a chance to affect the system for good, then go for it! However, some of us are called to something else, and getting involved in politics would be nothing but a distraction from our God-given jobs.

I've seen many people say that they could not vote for McCain in good conscience; my question to those people is how can you vote for anyone else in good consciense, knowing your vote will give the Socialist Obama that much more of an opportunity? Every conservative vote for anyone other than McCain is nothing but a vote for Obama. That's how it's been for years; voting for Ross Perot simply put Bill Clinton in office that much easier. It's not the way the Founders intended, but as Christians we must live with what we have, and therefore the only candidates that we can honestly consider as options are those in the two main parties. Would to God that someone with character and honesty like Chuck Baldwin would be elected, but in our warped, godless society, that's not going to happen.

So no, McCain is not a good choice. He's not even a very well conscienced choice for many. But should a Christian vote for him? Yes, because a vote against him is one more vote for Obama.

Saying that God wouldn't bless voting for McCain is like saying He would have cursed Israel for not choosing Asa because he didn't campaign to remove the high places, and instead winding up with a Reheboam. God isn't going to bless inactivity when you have a chance to make a difference.

Blogs are great for ranting

I love popping up and flaring my nostrils online; no repercussions, I can delete comments, and there's a spell check feature. Quite handy, that.

Basically, I've been toying around with this guy named Randy Ross on here: you can probably find him if you search; I'm not linking to his midden heap. Yes, he has some decent articles about simple things like Santa Claus and the like, but some of his other stuff is total poison. Take his advice about computers, for example. Now, every logical individual knows that a good computer system shouldn't need anti-virus, anti-spyware and anti-spam software on it; it shouldn't have all those security issues in the first place. But he goes off talking about firewalls and virus checkers and internet blockers like he doesn't know the first thing about computers. (Not entirely true; he hacked his MySql database and got my password from a phony userID I had on his site; he subsequently shut down my associated Yahoo e-mail address. Not a total idiot, computer-wise anyhow.)

Actually, humor aside, the real problem with his stuff is the apparent innocence and authenticity of it. Take this, for example:

"

1. The Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21, )
2. The Bible is without error (Psa 12:6, Psa 19:7-8)
3. The Bible is complete (Rev 22:18-19, 1 Cor 13:8)
4. The Bible is preserved (Mat 24:35, Psa 119:89, 1 Pet 1:23, 25)
5. The Bible is our final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim 3:16-17, Rev 22:18-19)"

Sounds good, does it not? Of course it does, it's completely Biblical. But THAT'S wherein the problem lieth; look at what follows.

"
6. While the King James translation is not directly inspired (the Apostle Paul, for example, did not speak Victorian era English), the KJV is the faithfully, divinely preserved, text of God's Word for English speaking man."

BLAM! Lookie there. Mr. Ross just bombed big time! Of course, Paul didn't speak English! What kind of an idiot thinks that has to be stated?? The big problem here is that Ross is casting doubt (however slyly) on the SCRIPTURAL definition of inspiration. We'll get into that later, but this is something that I disagree on just about EVERYONE with, even Dr. Ruckman, who Ross, for some reason, believes that I follow. I follow no man but Christ, and Paul, because of his command to do so.

Basically, a God that could inspire men to WRITE His Book, and then NOT inspire those who translated It
is impotent and weak. Interesting "God" you have there, Ross. Why does the modern "IFB" (Independent Fundamental Baptist) mind have so much trouble wrapping itself around that? If He did it once, HE for dang sure can do it again! You limit the Holy One of Israel through your unbelief, ladies.

Ok, I'll shut up for now, but I'll probably be back...I like dropping little comments on him, and since he's a little more accountable now, he shouldn't be refusing them. Of course macho guy has to reply (that rhymes!) to make sure he looks smart and spiritual, so that'll give me something else to rant about.