Thy Word Have I Hid in Mine Heart, So That Nobody Will Know I am a Christian...

Although the US government had come into the homes of Christians and confiscated (stolen) all of their Bibles, they still allowed church meetings. They figured that the Christians were unable to do anything worthwhile without their Bibles, and unfortunately they were right. The Christians that still met for church on Sundays looked pretty stupid…after all, they could remember the scores from the latest football game, but they had never spent any time committing God’s word to memory. Having church with no Bibles was pretty boring, because nobody could remember enough Scripture to even come up with a sermon. Children could quote half of the supposedly Christian C.S Lewis movies, because they had watched them over and over, but they were unable to quote a single Bible verse because they had not had the Scripture read to them over and over, and parents had made no effort to teach them to memorize their Bible.

The Christians had lost their effectiveness because they couldn’t for the life of them remember what the Bible said about certain things that threatened society. They had no victory over personal sin because they had not hidden God’s Word in their hearts. They had spent so much time in the world that they had assimilated into the world. The government was well on their way to getting Christianity in America to die, and the only thing they’d done is steal all the Bibles…

How would we as Christians cope in the world without our Bibles? Could we do it, or would we be defeated instead of victorious? Lately God has been bringing to my mind the need to learn Scripture and memorize Scripture. We are better equipped for anything that comes our way if we know our Bibles.

Many of us claim to have no time to learn and memorize Scripture, but we have time to watch the latest sports game and we have all the best parts committed to memory. When we go to church we can have an hour long discussion on who is cheating in the Olympics, but when someone asks “what is the verse that talks about…” we have no clue that there is even a verse in the Bible that talks about that specific topic.

We have no victory over sin because we haven’t hidden God’s Word in our hearts. We aren’t able to share our faith effectively because we just don’t know the verses. We aren’t able to help out another Christian in need because we have no clue what the Bible says about any subject. When we go to church on Sunday we grab the Bible off the back seat of the car, which is where we left it after the Wednesday evening service. Our kids have watched hours of movies in the past week but we haven’t sat and had any Bible time with them.

I believe that the current sad state of Christianity and the plethora of worldly Christians has everything to do with the fact that we don’t know our Bibles like we should. We need to get reading, learning, studying and memorizing.

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalm 119:11.

Sissified or Christlike?

There seems to be a trend among Baptists to vilify soft-spoken and quiet men as being effeminate, pansies or sissified. These people will point to certain occurrences in the Bible and decry the wimpiness that they feel has corrupted the Body of Christ.

Now I'll be the first to puke when a truly effeminate "man" shows up, but is all the hullabaloo really valid?

I was recently called "sissified" by a man, because I felt that his methods of approaching someone were too harsh, and I say they were completely unbiblical. In defense of his statement, this man pulled up what Jesus did in the Temple, and Paul's tirade against Elymas. Obviously I can't argue with the stories, but once you look a little closer, it's clear that they were taken out of context to prove his point.

Jesus dealt with sinners in a kind and loving way; the occasion in the Temple was against religious Pharisees taking advantage of the people. When Jesus was getting hot and heavy, it was ALWAYS against the religious crowd, never against sinners. The same with Paul: Elymas was a religious charlatan and trickster. The people that abuse these occurrences forget that in all the other times, these examples of ours, Jesus and Paul, dealt with sinners kindly and gently.

Now I understand that there are occasions where more direct action or a more offensive tack needs to be taken. I have done the same on many occasions: it simply requires some common sense and some wisdom to differentiate when.

It seems like people like these have forgotten the importance of meekness. Or the fact that the Bible says:

Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.

So much for Jesus "standing out in the street and yelling at people." Just because someone is soft-spoken, gentle and kind doesn't make them effeminate, it simply means that they are following the Master's example. When following the leading of the Spirit, one might be led to speak out or preach with vehemence, as many times is the case in church or on the street.

I'm afraid that people have become too self-spiritual and self-important that they see others below them and their self-made spirituality.

Those Evil Women in Pants

I was insulted that the people referred to in the last post on this site thought that my friend was a controlling wife and her husband unsaved simply because they saw her wearing pants outside her apartment, hence the reason why I am posting this. I wrote it a while ago but since I wrote it not long after I got saved I decided to wait on posting it for a while, but I believe that now is the time.

I do NOT believe that it can be Biblically proven that it is wrong for a woman to wear pants. Here is why:

I tend to believe that everything in Scripture is a black and white issue, not gray. The question on whether it is right for a woman to wear pants is a black and white issue. It is not Biblically wrong. It is just a case that for some women it may not be expedient to wear them and it does not edify. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." 1 Corinthians 10:23.

There are several commands and principles in the Bible on the area of modesty. I had always had Deuteronomy 22:5 quoted at me as to why it was wrong for a woman to wear pants. Lets look at that verse for a minute. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." One important thing I have learned in a Bible Believing Baptist Church as opposed to a Fundamental Baptist church is that the whole Bible is profitable for us and was written for our learning, but not all of it was written TO us. Basically, when I'm reading Deuteronomy 22:5, I'm reading something that can be beneficial to me, but it doesn't apply to me because the letter was not written to me...it's not my mail. It's Israel's mail.

By the way, what kind of clothes pertain, or belong to, men? I know in our culture today we have our ideas on what that is, but what about Biblically? Did you know that there are several mentions of the word "skirt" in the Bible, and that ALL of those references refer to a skirt as a man's garment? However, a man wearing that kind of clothing today for the most part grosses us out. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that pants are mens clothing. I know it mentions breeches. First off, breeches were for the priests only. Besides that, breeches were underwear.

In the church age, our only command in regards to clothing is that it be modest (1 Timothy 2:9). Some women do not believe that pants are modest. If they believe that, then they themselves ought not to wear them, but they have no right to try to enforce that belief on others. If it goes against their conscience in regards to modesty, it would be wrong for them to do. If a woman truly believes she is modest wearing pants, then she has the freedom to wear them and should not be judged in any way.

It's amazing what we can learn when we rightly divide (2 Timothy 2:15) the Scriptures (which we are commanded to do) and realize that not all things apply directly to us. Women have the liberty to wear only skirts, dresses, and culottes, and other women have the liberty to wear pants as well. It doesn't make any one of us more spiritual than the other. Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20), which means that this issue is NOT a matter of Biblical interpretation, it's a matter of Biblical TRUTH. Not one place in the Bible tells us that women cannot and must not wear pants. The only interpretation of Scripture we should be worried about is God's interpretation.

I don't know HOW many times I have heard the old argument (one that ought to be retired) that Christian women shouldn't wear pants because it causes Christian men to lust. There is some kind of lie propagated in Christian circles that men are turned on by sight but women aren't. I know MANY women who are also turned on by sight, but if they tell people that, they are labeled as a pervert. Where in the Bible does it say that a man is turned on by sight and a woman isn't?

Newsflash: Men can choose whether to lust or not. They can choose to keep looking or to avert their gaze. The sight oriented women have to do this when a man is dressed in a way that "turns them on". The men can return the favour. I am not advocating or excusing immodesty. I see many young girls wearing beautiful clothes that they and their authorities believe is modest, just to be told by some perverted guy that her clothing "turns him on" and that therefore she ought not wear it.

I also want to know why it is always the woman that bears the blame..."oh she caused him to lust because of her clothes"...No, he chose to sin. Be a man and take responsibility for your own sin. As women if we are immodest we will answer for it, but don't deem our modest clothing as immodest just because you like what you see...some women really are just beautiful...and God made them that way.

If a woman truly believes that what she is wearing is modest and her authority (father or husband) has allowed it, then she is not sinning in any way unless she is wearing it with wrong motives. Just because a man lusts over a woman doesn't mean that that woman's heart was wrong when she put on that garment.

By the way, you want to know what else I think? I really think that Christian (and particularly Baptist) men would not have so much trouble in the area of lust if they stopped viewing porn... (and it certainly isn't our fault that they are viewing porn...)

The "men’s clothing" issue...

So some people are telling me that pants are men’s clothing and that I ought not be wearing them, and then those same women will tell me they buy their t-shirts and polos etc in the MENS department because they are "more modest". Umm excuse me but with that glaring inconsistency you just lost my respect, especially when you excuse it by saying "well Deuteronomy 22:5 is only talking about pants, not other things". I personally know several lesbian women who buy their shirts in the men’s department...but the Baptists never take any notice of this.

T-shirts were first men’s clothing before they were women’s clothing...same goes for blouses, and tights, and pantyhose...that doesn't make them "men’s clothing" does it? So why do we pick on "pants" exclusively as if they are some kind of evil object that can be used to determine a woman's spirituality?

Men can (and should be able to) wear pink or purple shirts. Women wear them to. That does NOT make them a unisex item. Men’s shirts are cut for men and women’s shirts are cut for women.

I don't believe in "unisex" and I believe that that is the point God was trying to make in Deuteronomy 22:5.

We need to be careful of teachings that are built upon ONE verse of Scripture anyway...they aren't always wrong but we must be watchful that someone isn't just using it to push their own agenda.

Discord among the brethren

Like I do a lot of times, I'm going to start this with a DISCLAIMER: the following events are totally true, unadulterated (besides not including names) and rather shocking to a degree. I don't mean to cause problems, but I do want to bring attention to a trend that is very dangerous and sly.

A street preacher and his family that our church supported stayed at our church for some time. They were in between meetings, and my pastors allowed them to set their travel trailer up in the church parking lot. I helped the brother set up his materials for the service that Wednesday evening (that's when they had arrived) and assisted him however I could in setting up his trailer.

The next day, Thursday, my wife showed me some videos on YouTube that were rather out of line. Two videos can be found here. In one of the videos, the street preacher that was staying at our church was railing on a lost woman because she didn't like the sign that the preacher was holding. The sign read "HILLARY SHOULD BE HOME DOING THE DISHES." Now, while I don't take offense at the message of the sign at all-in fact I heartily agree-what business does a preacher of Jesus Christ have using something like that, which is geared only to cause a reaction and make people mad?

After watching the video, I left a comment on the video in question, stating that I felt the actions displayed were unbiblical, which was quickly responded to with antagonizing statements and self-righteous judgements. Eventually the preacher discovered who I was and called my pastor to set up a meeting. Pastor called me and asked me what had been going on, and I explained to him about the video and the attitude that had been displayed toward me after I had expressed my disagreement with the video. He assured me that they had been having issues with this man over the same kinds of things, and not to worry about it, but that we would be having a meeting with this preacher within the next couple days.

That Saturday, my pastors, the street preacher and myself sat down in my pastor's office to discuss this issue. At that point the street preacher was very calm and cordial to me, which was glaringly different from how he had acted on the YouTube comments. He had called me a sissified Christian, a liberal, a wimp, accused me of letting my wife run the house and he had questioned my salvation. In the meeting, however, he was calm and explained how he had preached on the street for so many years and had all this experience and yada yada. I apologized for a couple things: I had called him a jerk and told him to get his head out of his tail, and I had also not gone to him and addressed the issue to his face. However, he didn't apologize for a single thing, saying later that he hadn't done anything wrong, and continued to attack me and my wife.

What I didn't know at this point, was that a couple of the men in the church were heavily involved with this preacher, and his self-righteous attitude was beginning to infect them as well. Sadly, the next day, these two men accompanied the street preacher to a church in another town where this man was going to preach, but didn't notify my church at all. These men both held positions in the church, and had responsibilities that required their presence at the church. That afternoon, my pastors called these men in and addressed the problem, but they refused to apologize for what they had done. In addition, the street preacher got involved and accused my pastors of lording over the flock because they expected church members to fulful their duties.

Well, to sum it up, the two men left the church, and the street preacher was told to leave the premises. Unfortunately nothing has changed about the attitudes of the individuals involved, though I pray that they get right and come back to the church where they belong.

What has happened since then is more subtle and even more dangerous, I fear; the younger of the two men that left the church has been talking to a young lady on the internet, and the same spirit of self-righteousness and legalism that was his downfall has now threatened to infect others that aren't aware of the situation.

The street preacher and his family are very legalistic, claiming that they're more spiritual than others because of how they dress, what they watch, what they do, and so on. The man tried to guage my spirituality on whether or not my wife wears pants, what music I listen to, and whether I watch Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. Last time I checked, spirituality was guagued by a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not because of how you stack up to a self-righteous preacher.

Beware the leaven of the Pharissees.

King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference

King James Bible Only or Textus Receptus Only? There Is a Difference

In the Old Testament book of Judges, we have the Ephraimites escaping from the Gileadites in chapter 12. When the Ephraimites passed by the Gileadites, the Gileadites had a password, and that password was the word Shibboleth. They used this word because the Ephraimites could not pronounce it properly, and when asked for the password, they would prounounce it Sibboleth.

And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibbolet: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. Judges 12:5-6.

Under the “King James Only” label, we have the true King James Only people (the Gileadites) and the Textus Receptus fakers (the Ephraimites). Before they are put under close scrutiny, they may appear to believe the same thing. Remember that the Ephraimites appeared to be Gileadites until they could not pronounce the word Shibboleth. We have many claiming to stand on the King James Bible that cannot pronounce Shibboleth, and when asked to, we see their real position.

The King James Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus. There are those that believe the King James Bible is perfect because it came from the Textus Receptus, not because it is the King James Bible, yet they claim to be “King James Only”. What they really mean but won’t tell you is that they are “Textus Receptus Only”. There is a difference, and it’s a big difference. In the time of the Judges, there was a difference between Shibboleth and Sibboleth, and it was an important difference.

When asked what the difference is between a King James Bible only man and a Textus Receptus only man, Dr Samuel C. Gipp answers:
A "TR Man" gets his manuscripts from Antioch and his philosophy from Egypt. (“The Answer’s Book” Samuel C. Gipp, Daystar Publishing).
Dr Gipp continues by explaining the two different origins of the texts, the Alexandrian and the Antiochan texts. Along with those texts come certain philosophies also.

We are going to explore both the Textus Receptus only and the King James only people to see what the difference is.

One of these groups is indeed King James only, and we believe that the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved and inspired Word of God. The true Bible believers have their manuscripts and their ideology right. We believe that the King James Bible is perfect because it is the King James Bible, not just because of the texts it was translated from. We believe there was inspiration in the translation of the KJB. We believe that every word of the KJB is perfect, and that to go back to the Greek or Hebrew to try to get "deeper meaning" is in fact wrong as it is implying that our Bible is not perfect and we must get deeper meaning from somewhere else.

Then the other group are really Textus Receptus only, and are really Bible correctors under a King James only guise. These are the ones that Dr Gipp describes as having their manuscripts from Antioch but their philosophy from Alexandria. They are right about one thing…the right text. They have compromised with the Alexandrian ideology though that teaches that we do not have a perfect Bible. These are the ones that will say “Sibboleth” because they cannot pronounce “Shibboleth”. They believe that the KJB is perfect, or almost perfect, but only because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus, which they like to call "the originals" even though they are NOT the originals. They are copies of originals, and furthermore, there are many different varieties of the Textus Receptus, and those copies disagree with each other, so knowing which one is the right one would be difficult. The Textus Receptus-only people believe that we need to go to the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts to get "extra meaning" or "deeper meaning" from "the original text" when the Textus Receptus is NOT the original.

It’s also interesting to note that the version of the Textus Receptus that people use to study now was translated by Scrivener in 1894. If we know anything at all about math, we know that 1894 is well over 200 years after 1611, which is when the King James Bible was translated. That means that the King James Bible was around over 200 years before the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus. Remember, Srivener’s is the copy of the Textus Receptus that is used today for study. It is also interesting to note that the Scrivener’s Textus Receptus was backtranslated from the King James Bible. Yet there are people that think that the King James Bible is preserved because of a manuscript that came out after it. That doesn’t make any sense.

Will Kinney says: They then defend what they call the “traditional text” and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. The Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are about 99.9 % the same, but there definitely are some textual differences. Usually the KJB translators went with Beza, but sometimes with either Erasmus or Stephanus. What Mr. Scrivener did was to find the particular Greek readings from these various Greek texts that the King James Bible followed, and he then made up his copy of what is now the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek Textus Receptus. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus! (Will Kinney “Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?”).

I hope this has helped define the two main groups that fall under the "King James Only" category, because sometimes a person will tell you that they are King James only, only to find out later that they are really Textus Receptus only. This is a deceptive cloak for a Bible corrector to use so that people don’t know he is a Bible corrector. Most fundamental Baptist churches, Bible colleges and ministries will claim King James only when they are really Textus Receptus only. It’s important to find out before you get involved. Chances are, if they “go back to the original languages” that they are Textus Receptus only. Listen carefully…are they saying Shibboleth or Sibboleth?

Advanced Revelation, Double Inspiration, and People who lie about the Bible

Like always, the last forum that banned me (*cough*OB*cough) is embroiled in the TR vs. KJB debate again. The site claims to be "King James Version Only," and while the Administrator doesn't post enough for me to know for sure how he stands, the vast majority of the members there are "fair-weather KJB-onlyists," or they only believe the King James Bible because nothing better has come along to replace it.

Of course, this would only happen (the KJB being replaced) if it was a "faithful translation," though of course that very statement is insanely subjective, as anyone who uses his brain could figure. Someone who believes this is no better than Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, Bob Jones II and III, or Arlin Horton. The only difference is the text that they use to prop up their own ego and opinion. The first batch uses the Textus Receptus, while the other uses anything and everything except the TR. But in the end it's all the same thing: self-important, self-righteous men deciding for themselves what is right and wrong. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Now I know as well as anyone that the King James arose mostly from the manuscripts that were compiled into the TR. That's a fact, and an indisputable one. However, what those TR-lovers neglect to mention is that there are many passages in the KJB that don't come from any Majority text manuscript or text. For instance the Johannine Comma: the only text at the time that had that passage in it was the corrupt Latin Vulgate! However, those "godly men" put that phrase in there, and were later vindicated by the rise of many Antioch manuscripts that included the passage.

Another fun topic that they love to rant against on that forum is what has been called "double inspiration," or "advanced revelation." Now double inspiration is their description of the Biblical teaching of Scriptural peservation and inspiration: that al Scripture is given by inspiration of God, so anything that claims to be Scripture must be given by inspiration of God. Simple, no? Then we have advanced revelation, which they tout as adding to God's word, when in fact it is simply things that showed up in the English LANGUAGE as a result of the translation from Greek and Hebrew. It wasn't something added in by the translators, it was something that was evidenced through the translation of Scripture that had been in the passage all along: it just wasn't evident in Greek or Hebrew!

Ok I'm tired of typing now, so I'll get into more down the road if I feel like it. Comments=more rant, so if you want more, comment! :D

Ye do err...

Recently I have been hit by an onslaught of attacks (this blog not being included in that). I think the Lord is allowing Satan to touch my wife and I to a small degree; most likely in preparation for the ministry to which He has called us. I'd appreciate the prayers of anyone that calls themselves a born-again Christian; I'm simply doing (to the best of HIS ability: I can do nothing without Him) what He's called me to do.

On a slightly more enjoyable note, I'd like to address some of the more recent comments directed toward me through this blog.

I knew Daryn ("Big D") back when our families attended the same church in Missouri; in fact his father was the assistant pastor of the church. A huge falling out occurred in 2001 or so; several families left initially, and Daryn's family left a couple months after. Please bear in mind that in 2001 I was 12-13 years old.

We've attended several churches since then, my family and I, and the Lord has done some amazing things in my life. Since leaving that church, I learned the most vital part of Bible study: Rightly Dividing. This topic was anathema at the church that Daryn's and my family attended at the time, so understandably few if any people there would understand the Bible in the way that God intended.

Now back to the present, 2008. All of a sudden, Daryn, from whom I haven't heard a thing in years, shows up on my blog and claims to know me inside and out or some such nonsense; he said that he knows me better than a good friend of mine who I see occasionally and talk to online quite often. Basically, because of his attitude when he approached me, he got on my bad side really quick.

He began by questioning my attitude, of which he knows nothing, and saying that I was a fool for believing the King James Bible to be the perfect word of God. Now I don't know about anyone else that might perchance read my blog, but I believe that next to the doctrines of the Trinity, Salvation and Eternal Security, the King James Bible is the most important, mainly because nothing else has any degree of credence without the perfection of God's holy word. How do you show someone how to be saved if you don't have a perfect Bible to show them from??

Anyway, in the end, Daryn wound up attacking both me AND Jason (the friend he claimed didn't know me as well as Daryn) for showing him from the Scriptures and with plain logic that his position is wrong. Showing his arrogance, pride and haughtiness, Daryn continued, up until his last point, to make hypocritical and Pharisaical remarks about Jason and myself, though he knows absolutely nothing about Jason, and little more about me.

I gave him this simple challenge, which I will extend to any reader that disagrees with my simple premise (the King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and is given by inspiration of God): take a King James Bible, and study the topics:

• Inspiration
• Preservation
• Translation

Write it down, and tell me what you come up with. It's always best to realize at the entry of any study that YOU are wrong (me too), GOD is right, and you need the HOLY SPIRIT and the WORD OF GOD to teach you (and me) the TRUTH from that Book. Pride will ruin any chance of a decent Bible study if you don't crucify it at the outset. Do that, and the Lord will be able to show you something.