What I Believe about the Spanish Bible

“What is truth?” is a famous Bible quotation. The speaker, Pontious Pilate, is probably one of the biggest fools in history: The Truth was standing right in front of his face! Unfortunately, modern-day Laodicean “funnymentalism” asks the same question, when their answer is no further away than Pilateʼs was!


!In an age characterized by spiritual poverty, wretchedness, blindness and nakedness (Rev. 3:17), itʼs no surprise to find books like “The King James Only Controversy” attacking the foundation of our faith: Godʼs written word. To our immense shame, weʼve largely sat back and have allowed this travesty to occur. Since Westcottʼs and Hortʼs blasphemous Greek text was published in 1881, over 300 English versions of the Bible have been foisted on the American people and the rest of the English- speaking world. From a people whose first printed work, a history book, contained phrases like “the gross darknesse of popery” and “popish trash,” weʼve become a “Bible-of-the-Month Club” sheeple who will follow whatever spewage is printed in the “Butter knife of the Lord” (Sword of the Lord), not realizing that these are the very people who “have perverted the words of the living God,” and couldnʼt find Godʼs written words with a 1 million candlepower flashlight and a Tom-Tom GPS!


Moreover, however muddled the issue has become over the English Bible, the waters are even murkier over the Spanish Bible issue, with one main difference: the combatants on all sides of the issue claim to believe the King James Bible!! Now that close to half a dozen Spanish versions are on the table, and the rhetoric and attacks are heating up, it seems too late for a call to reason. While God hath given us the ministry of reconciliation, unless the parties are open to discussion, nothing will be reconciled, John Calvin notwithstanding. So, to save time and negate as much hostility as I can, I am simply going to state, for the record, what God has shown me in regard to His words in Spanish, and leave it at that. Godʼs opinion is the only one in which Iʼm interested, so I donʼt hesitate to “Tell it like it is” If straight talk chaps your hide, then either discontinue reading, or get some vaseline and read on at your own peril.


This age ends, like all others, in apostasy. I think that it is extremely apparent that we are living in the final stage of the last days, and the Bible we all claim to believe clearly defines our era as a “great falling away.” While we all want to cling to cliché phrases like “We can be Philadelphian Christians in Laodicea,” the evidence for that, especially these days, is virtually nonexistent. I personally know that I am worse than useless, and my flesh is a greater adversary than I sometimes seem able to handle, and I know from human nature and the Book that all men are the same way in one form or another, and to expect a Christian who is by default cold, calloused, and carnal to be able to produce a faithful, God-honored Bible stretches the limits of credibility, regardless of the destination language. God has already used men - native, Spanish- speaking men, to translate His word into Spanish. Now, why Gringoes think they can correct those words, I donʼt understand, but I can certainly understand how a Latino would be upset with some Nortemericano telling him that his Bible “would be better translated as such or so-forth.” (Sound familiar, Gringo??) God is fluent in Spanish, just like He is fluent in Chinese, English, German, Tamil, Esperanto and any other language that exists or ever has existed, so to think that God is not capable of putting His words in any language is stupid. Or ignorant, if you prefer Bible words. Now, this is not to say that God HAS put His words into any specific language other than English (donʼt give me that “originals” nonsense!), though I believe that He has: I am simply stating that God can and thereʼs not a cotton-pickinʼ thing that Baptists, scholars, atheists or apostates (or apostate, Baptist scholars) can do about it if He decides to use another language. At the same time, God owes no one anything, least of all the Spanish-speaking world. Spain is responsible for some of the worst torture and genocide of Christians since the Roman Empire (second only to the Roman Catholic Church), so to think that God has to give His word in Spanish is, again, ignorant.


!The Spanish Bible has a very old and rich history. Casiodoro de Reina completed the first Protestant Spanish Bible in 1569. De Reina, like Luther, was a Catholic clergyman who faced physical persecution at the hands of the Catholic church because he insisted on translating the Scriptures into the common or “vulgar” tongue. The Office of the Inquisition in Spain had expressly forbidden, in obedience to the Papal position on the matter, that any Bible be translated into Spanish. De Reina, a Spaniard and a Philadelphian-age European, sacrificed greatly for the cause of providing the Spanish people with the Scriptures. With the completion of his Bible, the Spanish-speaking people now possessed a Bible based on the Received Text (Stephanusʼ 1550 edition).


De Reinaʼs pupil, Cipriano de Valera, another persecuted Catholic, completed his revision of de Reinaʼs Bible in 1602. This revision corrected what Catholic taint had unwittingly seeped into the 1569 Bible, ensuring that the Bible, now dubbed the “Reina Valera” would, for 400 years, be the archenemy of the Catholic church in Spanish. In fact, during de Valeraʼs revision work, he, like Tyndale before him, had to flee his home country and take up residence (ironically) in England.


In the middle 1800s, yet another Spanish, Catholic clergyman, by the name of Ángel de Mora, completed another revision of the Reina Valera 1602 Bible, correcting 99% of the omissions that were a result of incomplete manuscript evidence at the time of the original editions. This edition compared the 1602 edition to the King James and brought it solidly in line with the Received Text and the KJB. This edition came close on the eve of the Philadelphian church age, as Westcottʼs and Hortʼs villainous, perverse text was soon to arise, drowning the world in pro-Vatican, humanistic rationalism and perverted Bibles; the hinges of Godʼs “open door” (Rev. 3:8) were squealing closed.


The next major revision of the Reina Valera Bible came along in 1909. With the RSV and ESV now vying for supremacy against “The monarch of the Books,” Westcottʼs and Hortʼs “scholarly” text was permeating every corner of Bible translation and textual criticism. It should come as no surprise, then, that the 1909 revision of the Reina Valera was “leavened” with sprinkles of Alexandrian scholarship and modernist corruption. Text and Translation: European Languages gives direct proof that the translation committee behind the 1909 revision relied on the Critical Text.


The committee behind the most popular Spanish edition, the RV1960, was presided over by a man named Eugene Nida, known as the “Father of dynamic equivalence.” The truth of Godʼs words was so important to this man, that while translating the Bible into a south seas tongue, whose culture had no knowledge of sheep, decided to call Jesus “the pig of God.” Any Born-again Christian should be


absolutely LIVID about that, but unfortunately, men like Calvin George have accepted this edition, based completely on the Alexandrian, anti-King James Critical Text. The fact of the matter is that the 1960 is inherently a corrupt, Vatican-sympathizing, Ecumenical snow-job that has completely removed the ability to teach doctrine to the Spanish speaking people.


The question faced by Bible Believers, then, is “Which Bible?,” the same question asked and answered (in English) not so long ago. Faced with “antiquated,” “archaic” Bibles in Spanish, or modern, Rome-tainted editions, we now come full-circle to the question presented in the introduction: did God provide His words in Spanish? If one assumes that the answer is no, then more questions ensue. However, I firmly believe that God not only is able to provide a Spanish Bible, but that He already did. I also believe that it is folly for a Laodicean Christian to try to improve upon anything that God has already done, as our church age is commended for absolutely NOTHING. In fact, the standard, run-of-the-mill lethargy and nonchalance seen in Bible Believing churches makes God want to PUKE US OUT!! Yes, YOU, Baptists!! Donʼt be so haughty to think that you or I can do anything lasting or permanent here: weʼre doomed to APOSTATIZE! Take Hyles-Anderson College, for example: after switching to the King James only position in the 1970s, Dr. Hyles was one of the most outspoken defenders of the King James Bible. After his passing, however, his successor, Jack Schapp, has trod underfoot the Book that his daddy-in-law stood for for around 30 years! APOSTASY!! Ghandi said it best: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” AMEN!! To think that a lost sinner like Ghandi understood a truth that Independent, Fundamental, Hellfire and Damnation preachinʼ Baptists canʼt grasp is almost depressing! Then, those “saved, sanctified, serving” Baptists think that they can somehow produce a faithful Bible, in a language that, in many cases, isnʼt even their native tongue?! The ludicrous nature of such a concept completely boggles the mind!!


To top it all off, what seems to be the main force behind every group that has decided to do their own thing in regard to a Spanish Bible appears to have the same reason among themselves: they donʼt want to accept the available Spanish Bible because they donʼt want to be linked to Ruckman. Why believing God and accepting a BOOK as His WORD would make someone a “Ruckmanite,” I cannot understand, but unfortunately, people have decided that itʼs easier to strike off on their own and make their own Bible instead of BELIEVING the one that God already provided, because of their fear of man.


If you have legitimate reasons to make your own version, then go right ahead: but if your reason is because you think that accepting the Valera 1865 as Godʼs word in Spanish is going to link you to Ruckman, then SHAME ON YOU! First of all, why are you so stinking scared? The fear of man bringeth a snare!! Second of all, the only thing really linking Dr. Ruckman to the Valera 1865 project is that a few PBI graduates have signed onto it. Dr. Ruckman has not endorsed ANY Spanish Bible or Spanish Bible project!! Grow up!!


Suffice it to say that I believe that God put His hand on the Reina-Valera 1865 edition for the Spanish-speaking world, and anything else is but a pale imitation of Godʼs words. While my ministry in Latin America is still before me, I can say that God has shown me, without a shadow of a doubt, that the 1865 is His word in Spanish. In my opinion, anyone that insists on making their own translation simply doesnʼt believe that God would provide His words in Spanish, as a faithful, TR-based Spanish Bible is already available! Either that, or they are flat-out ignorant. When someone states that he knows that the 1865 is perfect, yet turns around and creates his own “Reina Valera” edition, based on his own opinions, that man very obviously is discounting Godʼs power on His book in that language. When FEELINGS overcome FAITH, you have a weak, baseless project that will NEVER have Godʼs blessing.

Paradise and Heaven

One of the more obscure topics in the Bible is the actual location of Paradise, and, by extrapolation, Heaven itself. I was recently accosted by a man who insisted that Paradise is and always has been Heaven, based on a few Scripture references. I intend to show the origin of these locales based on what the Bible says.

Again, I make the King James Bible my sole authority: any Scripture used is King James only, and any other references will be ensured to line up with Scripture. No other Book has the power or authority of the Monarch of the Books, the Authorized Version of the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Again, I don't wish to get into the Gap issue here, but it must be noted that in the original creation, God only created one heaven. The atmosphere, also called the firmament, is also called "heaven" or "the firmament of heaven." So we can safely say that "heaven" doesn't immediately mean God's throne (Matt. 5:34), but has several meanings. Specifically, the Apostle Paul speaks of being caught up to the "third heaven" after being rocked to sleep stoned to death. He also uses the word "paradise" in that context, stating that the place where he went was called "paradise." Since the typical consensus is that paradise is not in the third heaven, allow me to explain what must be, according to the Scriptures.

The first instance of the word "paradise" is found in Luke 23:43.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Very obviously, Jesus is saying to the thief on the cross that he (the thief) will be with Christ after their deaths, that same day. Therefore, wherever Jesus is to be found immediately after His death, the thief will also be present.

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

Jesus was clearly stating here that He would go to Hell during the time when He was dead.

Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Also reference this:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

Christ's suffering was the means by which He preached to the spirits in prison (2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6) in the same Hell where the rich man went (Luke 16:19-31) and saw Abraham's Bosom.

These places, Abraham's Bosom, and Hell, were separated by a "great gulf" which was impassable, meaning that while communication was indeed possible as this story proves, they were definitely separate places, one being a place of torment, and the other being described as comfortable. Therefore, since Jesus spent those three days in Hell, and He promised the thief that he would be with Christ in Paradise, the only logical conclusion that "Abraham's Bosom" is also called "paradise," the temporary resting place for righteous Old Testament souls whose sins had not yet been washed away under the Old Covenant of the Law. These people could no more enter heaven proper without proper atonement for their sins than could any lost person today: they had to have their sins forgiven first, which means that Christ had to die and pay their sin-debt! (Eph. 4:8)

So, we can see how that Christ very clearly said that paradise was in the center of the earth along with Hell. However, we also see that Paul stated that paradise was in the third Heaven. The simplest way to reconcile this "contradiction" is to simply accept that when Christ "led captivity captive," the place in Heaven where they went is also called "paradise" in the Bible.

There is much more to this study, including the Deep, the Pit, the Lake of Fire, and the whole origin and purpose of these places. However, I believe I covered the intended topic sufficiently, so we will let it rest until another time.

Comment if you have questions or have Biblical evidence of where I am wrong on this topic: I am always open to the correction of the Book!

The Sons/sons of God

Recently, a topic came up that I thoroughly enjoy discussing, but about which there appears to be a lot of misconceptions. (This will in no way be exhaustive; many books have been written on these topics, and I hardly have the space to do a worthy study on them in a blog post!)

We begin our study in the usual place: at the beginning. (Note: all Scripture is from the King James Bible, and no authority other than It shall be appealed to, especially "The Greek" or "The Hebrew.")

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The key word here is not what one would usually pick up on or make of any importance: the word to note is "image." Obviously, this verse supports the Triune nature of God ("our image"), and dually it speaks of man's triune nature as well: body, soul, and spirit. Adam was made in God's perfect image, a triune being, and certainly in the likeness of His physical appearance also.

As a result of that likeness and image, check out how Adam is referred to later:

Luke 3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Do note that in this instance, "son" is lower-case, denoting that Adam was not a deity: he was simply made in the image of God, and therefore was called the "son of God." Thus, the vast importance of the precise wording of John 3:16 is made apparent: Jesus is the only "begotten" son of God, or God the Son (capital "S"), so dropping the "begotten" (meaning God's direct progeny or "genetic" offspring) makes Jesus a liar, as there are many other beings that are called the "sons of God."

Now, we'll sally back to the first place in the Bible where the actual phrase "son(s) of God" is mentioned.

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The typical argument here is that these "sons of God" are simply righteous descendants of Seth, as opposed to the unrighteous descendants of Cain. This is certainly a lousy exegesis, since Seth himself was said to have been born in Adam's image, not God's (Genesis 5:3). The fact is that when Adam sinned, he lost that perfect image of God: his spirit died. From that point on, man was unregenerate, fallen, and existed as a dichotomy: body and soul, with a dead, worthless spirit inside. Man's communion with God had been cut off, and from then on, man was born in the image of Adam (1 Cor. 15:49).

We'll conclude then, based on the evidence given in the book of Genesis, that the phrase "sons of God" cannot refer to human beings, since not only is there a precise distinction between God and mankind in this verse, but that indeed the image of God had been lost (and still is in unregenerate man). Therefore, these "sons of God" are something entirely different, and we'll look and see what the Bible says about them.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Now, without getting into the Genesis 1:1-2 issue, let us simply state here that since it is the sons of God that are presenting themselves before God, and Satan is among them, that he is indeed numbered among these sons of God, though in an obviously fallen state. Why else would he show up? These are supernatural, angelic beings (Job 38:7) who were present at the creation, though Satan, among them, obviously no longer retains his office as the LORD's light-bearer (Ezekiel 28:14). These sons of God, then, are not based on their standing with God: they are called sons of God based on their creation (Genesis 6 details sons of God that were involved in vile sexual practices!). So far, we have established two things:

1. These sons of God are not human

and

2. These sons of God are supernatural, angelic beings who were present at the creation.

Now, let us tie together the different uses of "son of God" between the Old and New Testaments.

A serious student of the Bible will recognize that before Christ's death, burial and resurrection, there was no "new birth," no "Body of Christ," and no forgiveness of sins. As Christ was the "last Adam," (1 Cor. 15:45), he redeemed fallen man and restored the perfect Image of God (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:4; Col. 3:10)

With Christ's propitiation for our sins, He conformed us to the image of God through His death. We now have the power to become the sons of God, or regain that fallen image! The reason that a person or being is called a "son of God" is because he is made in the image of God, just as genetic children retain the image or likeness of their parents. In our case, as David said, we have been made a little lower than the angels (Psalms 8:5), but we have been given the unspeakable free gift of Eternal Life, something that the angels obviously don't have (Gen. 6, 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6).

Questions? Leave a comment and I'll reply to the best of my ability.

Yet more on evolution

See, I just can't put the topic down. When I actually get around to posting, I have a tendency to hit the same topic over and over again until I finally get a new topic to ride for a while.

Here are some very problematic things that evolutionists have to completely ignore in order to continue believing their Mother Goose-style fairy tale religion:

Abiogenesis, or the rise of life from non-living material. Fransisco Redi and Louis Pasteur proved this nonsense to be exactly that: nonsense, between 100 and 200+ years ago. The question is then, how can someone who claims to be intelligent actually think that life came from non-life, when there is neither evidence nor credible theory to back it up? Even Richard Dawkins, famous atheist and evolutionist, has no intelligent answer to this question, though even just the title of his book "The God Delusion" certainly sums up his thoughts about an intelligent Creator.

Thermodynamics, the Laws by which life, matter and energy are ruled. First, evolution cannot explain the basic existence of the things that these Laws rule; naturally-occurring spontaneous generation of the matter in the universe is directly contrary to the Laws, so even our existence is "illegal" when one believes in evolution. Secondly, the arise of "higher" creatures from "lower" ones requires an addition of genetic material that has not only never been observed, but is in fact a direct violation of the Laws as well. While and energy cannot be destroyed, they can be reduced to an unusable state, so everything tends to disorder, chaos and entropy, while the "theory" of evolution requires the exact opposite, which, once again, has never been observed in nature.

Beneficial Mutations, or random genetic cellular mutations that produce positive, helpful results. This is the cornerstone of the "Natural Selection" tenant held so dearly by evolutionists: only by slow, beneficial mutations can a creature hope to evolve into a more adapted creature. This thought even underlies the basic racism of the evolution "theory," in that since Aboriginal and African peoples are older and less evolved than whites, they are inferior (Hitler and Mussolini loved THAT one). However, the evolutionist's faith is challenged by the fact that all genetic mutations, from warts and missing limbs to cancer, are not only NOT beneficial, but are in fact harmful! Indeed, the human immune system knows well enough to attack mutated cells to help keep the body normal and healthy, so why would anyone think that these problems could be beneficial?


In conclusion, Evolution requires life to arise from non-living matter, which has never been observed nor even supported by any scientific research, complete circumvention of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which is impossible since they are immutable, natural LAWS, and "beneficial" mutations, which have also never been observed nor supported by scientific findings. Therefore, we have, instead of a scientific theory, a religious belief unsupported by science or common sense.

More on the "theory" of Evolution

While contemplating this "Global Warming" "Climate Change" issue, one has to come to the conclusion that it is unchangeably tied to the farce that is Evolution.

For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.

Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?

Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.

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?

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?

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?

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.

"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.

The Cancer of Catholicism

I'm not going to get into the Great Whore issue or the relationship between Rome and the Antichrist in the end time, but I do want to rant a little and maybe inform some readers of some largely unknown church history.

Generally speaking, people understand the history of the church in the last 2,000 or so years to be something like this: Jesus died as per the story in the Gospels, the Gospel spread throughout most of the known world, 300 AD saw Constantine wed the then-corrupt Roman church with the state government, and then Luther threw a fit in the 1400s and sparked the Reformation, which led to the translation and printing of the Bible in European languages leading to the expansion of Biblical Christianity.

Now there is nothing really incorrect with this account; the problem is that it misses some key facts and issues that most Christians, even those that claim to believe the Bible, overlook. Among ecumenical groups today there is a push to find common ground between any and all groups of people that claim the name of Christ, but a look into the past of the numerically largest group of "Christians" reveals some truly chilling, disturbing things that most people have no clue about.

For instance, in 1534, Ignatius de Loyola founded the Society of Jesus, better known as the Jesuits. This group of fanatical papists has wreaked such havoc upon the world as to be almost inconceivable. From the infamous yet little-known St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in which more than 10,000 French Huguenots were brutally tortured and murdered by a Jesuit plot, to the sponsoring of the attempted invasion of England by Spain via the well-known "Spanish Armada" (packing along hundreds of Jesuit priests and instruments of the Inquisition), to even more recently the Jesuit connection to the assasination of President Lincoln, the "Society of Jesus" is a no-holds-barred, lawless group of individuals whose main premise is that the ends justify the means, and they believe the church of Rome so fanatically that they are said to believe that white is black if the Catholic church were to say as much.

However, the most poignant and effective attack by the Jesuits and the Great Whore herself has been against our Authorized English Bible. From the get-go, the Catholic church banned possession or memoriztion of the Bible, though even their "scholars" and priests were accused of scareely knowing even the names of the books of the Bible! Even in England, dozens or perhaps hundreds of people were burned at the stake for simply teaching their children to memorize the Lord's Prayer in English! If at any time there was an organization more diabolical or satanic than Rome, history does not record it.

With the truth of the English Holy Scriptures defying every decree made at the demonic Council of Trent, the Catholic heirarachy knew that they had to counteract the effects of the AV if they were to have a chance to once again subdue England under the pope ("Bloody" Mary's Catholic reign of terror ended unsuccessfully and abruptly with her execution at the hands of Protestand troops, to be Providencially replaced by His Highness, King James the First of England). So in order to fight the sway that the King James Bible held over the English-speaking people, the Jesuits commissioned the Duay Bible, still the Catholic standard. Interestingly enough, this "Bible" perversion is based on exactly the same manuscript heritage as every new translation being spewed out of Nelson, Tyndale, and any other publishing house. I've dealt with Siniaticus and Vaticanus before on this blog, so I shan't revisit that topic. Suffice it to say that any version besides a King James Bible is based on the same corruption that the Catholic Whore employed to keep the world under bondage for several hundred years.

Ok, I now forget where I was going with this, primarily because I'm exhausted and about to fall asleep. Comments are great...maybe they would help motivate me to post more often.

Unity or cowardice?

How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.

Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.

However, where does unity end and compromise begin?

I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.

Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.

"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.

But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.

Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.

So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.

"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

"In My Father's Eyes"

From a distance He'd be watching me,
And I guess somehow He knew,
That in my heart I longed to be like Him.
In time the closer we became,
The more it seemed I grew;
I'd fall, He'd pick me up, and I'd try again.

He loves me even when I do
The things I shouldn't do
And when I fail to do the things I should.
I've heard it said that love is blind,
And I guess I know it's true:
He forgets the bad, and remembers all the good.

In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.

And when this life is over,
My last trial I've gone through,
T'will be worth it all just to hear Him say "Well done."
And maybe then I'll understand
Just what He saw in me,
But I'm sure I'll find that He was blinded by the Son.

In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.

Perspective

Bro.Forrest asked me to put up some ideas on how to stay out of a rut as a Christian; while my post was specifically about our testimony as it relates to our jobs, it's apparent that the outline God gave me is relevant to every part of our Christian life.

1. God's Pardon

While Jesus said not to look back after setting your hand to the plow, sometimes it's good to remember what God saved us from and where we could be today without Him. It's almost rote, this concept, but it shouldn't be. The problem in Christianity is that we KNOW things, but we don't MEDITATE on them like we're commanded to. We know that God saved us and gave us a new life in Him, but we fail to really ponder what that means to us and how we owe Him such a great debt. We are insignificant nothings in His sight, yet He took the time and sacrificed for US. God, giving us worms the time of day - marvelous!!

2. God's Provision

Where would we be without His daily provision in our lives? How could we take a single breath, walk a single step, utter a single word, without His direct allowance and care? Again, we take this for granted every day without really contemplating His incredible work in our lives. From the dwelling that He's given us, the food that He provides us the money for, the strength and skill to work and the very breath that keeps us alive, God is more gracious and caring than we could ever deserve. Remember that, next time you take a bite of something, take a step somewhere, or wake up alive and healthy, God didn't HAVE to allow you to do that: He is just providing another blessing that you and I don't even come close to deserving.

3. God's Promise

After all that, the Salvation of God and the blessings of God, He deigns to even bless us more: He promises to give us a home in Heaven for eternity. Not only does He view our scummy frame of dust and love us, He will reward us just for serving HIM! It reminds me of a song by Gary Duty:

"I stand in true amazement,
At Your vast and perfect Plan:
How you could save a wretch like me,
I'll never understand.
And to allow me, though unfaithful,
To serve you 'till the end,
And then to be rewarded,
I just cannot comprehend!"

To "go through the motions" or "get stuck in a rut" is an affront to the amazing, all-powerful God that made us, saved us, cares for us and has promised to reward us. If you find yourself in a day-to-day, hum-drum existence, just ponder and meditate on the things that God has done for us. Thinking about and knowing them is not enough: just as knowing that Christ died for our sins is not enough to save us, just knowing about God's miracles in our life isn't going to get us far. It's really a difference between a head knowledge and a heart understanding.

I hope this was a help to someone. God bless!

Basic Grammar...continued

Ok, so let's see how far I can get with this.

Samer is a guy I've known for quite a while. I don't mean to smear him, though I probably could rather easily, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be a little blunt about him. He doesn't like me. He finds every possible excuse that he can to disagree with me. And now he's deleted a thread with my previous article on it. AFTER he found out that the owner of the site had ok'd the post. If that's not abusing one's power, then I don't know what is!!

So every time I bring up Biblical Dispensationalism, he immediately quotes the whole of Romans 4 and expects all the Dispensationalists to drop dead on the spot. Strangely enough they don't, which I'm sure is a bit of a quandary to him. I'm going to try to clear up any questions that he may have about the issue here and now.

"is" denotes being, in the present. "The pizza IS cold" meaning the pizza currently is cold.

"was" denotes past tense, as in a past point in time. "The pizza was hot" meaning the pizza at one point was hot, and by implication is no longer hot.

Rom. 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Ok, good verse. Now let's see what it says. "...is the reward not reckoned of grace...." Notice the tense? That's an important word: "Tense."

tense 2 |tɛns| |tɛns|
noun Grammar
a set of forms taken by a verb to indicate the time (and sometimes also the continuance or completeness) of the action in relation to the time of the utterance : the past tense

Ok, so a tense denotes in which time or times a certain occurrence...occurs. Simple enough, right? Ok so I'm going to throw a few things out here and see what happens.

Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom. 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Always watch those slippery tenses. Is, are, etc. are rather complicated unless you pay close attention. Notice that Paul in Romans 4 is making a comparison, using Old Testament occurrences and making them fit the doctrine that he is teaching right now. Let's see something else that gets changed to fit what the author needs it to say!

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Heb. 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.

Good verses! These verses, or at least the first two, show that we are to live by the faith of Christ, which faith is really the gift of Ephesians 2:8-9, if you pay attention. The third verse is applicable to the HEBREWS in the Tribulation (does His soul really have no pleasure in you if you draw back??) and therefore is not DOCTRINALLY applicable to us.

The funny thing about these passages is that they're quoting an Old Testament verse. Wanna' see what it is?

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Cool! See what a little Bible study...um, wait a second...reread that verse. Another time. Once more for good measure. Look at the word ALL THREE of the NT verses leave out!! The OT passage that's being quoted says that a just man lives by HIS faith, speaking of his own, while the NT verses say that a just man shall live by CHRIST'S faith!! Rather interesting predicament, eh? PAUL JUST MISQUOTED THE BIBLE!!!

So? Ok, so Paul misquoted the Bible to make a point. Your problem? See, the Bible doesn't have to make sense to you. The authors, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, didn't have to wait for your opinion to write what they did. They just did it and God blessed it. No, that missing word isn't a scribal error. It's missing on purpose.

So, what have we learned from this? That God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit on men, can write what He wants to, to make what points He wants to, and it doesn't matter a bit what you or anyone else thinks about it. Ok, hopefully that's clear enough.

Next point: debunking the myth that Romans 4 proves that everyone got saved by repenting of their sins and trusting Christ. Sorry, but that in and of itself is laughable! If the DISCIPLES didn't know that Jesus was going to rise again, then how on God's green earth could DAVID have known? Or anyone before the actual resurrection?? Come on now, use that brain God benevolently placed within your skull!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom. 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Quick question: does this passage say that Abraham was not justified by works? Yes or no answer; it's really quite simple. In fact, if you pay attention, Paul's making a rather misleading question here. He asks if Abraham was justified by his works, and then instead of answering the question, he turns it around and talks about glorifying before God, when that wasn't even part of the original question! In fact, Paul just avoided answering his own question, because it would have totally messed up his point! Don't believe me? Well read the next verse.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Everyone likes to try to do away with this little problem to their theology by making this "justification before man," but they don't realize that it's their theology at fault. Abraham WAS justified by his works. He was NOT sanctified by his works, but he WAS justified. That verse says so. So basically, Paul's premise in Romans 4:1 is correct, just misleading. He WAS justified by his works, but he does NOT have whereof to glory before God. See? Again, simple English grammar. An understanding of the difference between Sanctification and Justification helps too.

See, the simple explanation is that Paul is writing to one group of people, namely the Church, of which you and I are a part, and James is writing to someone else, or a group of someone elses. Which theory makes sense, since Paul addresses all of the letters with "To the church which is at (insert city here)" and James starts his epistle with "To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." See, when viewed from a literal, grammatical, logical perspective, the Bible makes complete and perfect sense.

It just doesn't agree with you.

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

What is Truth?

I think I titled something this a long time ago, but I like it so here we go again. The phrase "What is truth?" is from Pilate, right before he condemned Christ to death. Here's the passage:

John 18:38
"Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all."

He had Truth standing in front of him, but he was too blind to recognize it! Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." John 17:17 says "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." 1 Kings 17:24 "And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth."

So many people today have the truth right in front of their noses, but they haven't the foggiest idea what it is. Of course I'm speaking of the Bible issue; that's one of my hobby horses I like to pull out from time to time. God said He'd preserve His word. God said His word is given by inspiration. God said His word is perfect, pure, holy and righteous. Everyone should be able to agree on that; anyone who believes in the true God, that is.

But here's where everyone, IFBs included, starts stumbling and stuttering. The problem is that though everyone will agree that God's word is perfect, pure, "inspired," inerrant, etc., very few know where to FIND that word of God. Hence the deal about the "Alexandrian Cult," which Dr. Ruckman likes to harp on, and then there's the TR crowd that think the Bible derives Its authority from some moth-eaten manuscripts that only scholars can read.

A man named James White wrote a book titled "The King James-Only Controversy." Or favorite Bible Believing satirist fired back with a book titled "The Scholarship-Only Controversy," basically showing how White not only lied at least 16 times in his book, but also puts the authority of the Scriptures not on the Scriptures, but on the "learned men" that can study "The Greek and Hebrew."

However, even IFBs have fallen into the same trap, if not as far, by things such as the aforementioned statements by Ross. "The Bible this" and "the Bible that," followed slyly by "The King James translation" yada yada. See the difference? Bet you would have missed that if someone didn't show you!! That's how these shiesters like to work: in retail it's called Bait and Switch. You make the person think you're talking about a certain subject, then carefully change the object of the discussion without the person noticing, so he thinks the original object is still being discussed. Basically, Ross doesn't believe any existing Bible anymore than he believes in the Tooth Fairy. And that is EXACTLY how it works worldwide: people believe all this high-sounding, great stuff about the "Bible," then turn around and demean the "King James Version" or "translation of the Bible" etc.

There IS no other Bible, and contrary to Dr. Cloud's belief, the King James Bible or Authorized Version is NOT an edition of the Textus Receptus. The KJB was translated after being compared to over 300 manuscripts in 20-40 languages. While the vast majority of these were from the Antioch family of manuscripts, some of the readings follow the corrupt Latin Vulgate instead. Why is that? God wrote It, not those translators. He put what He wanted in there, so HE Authorized It, not King James. The king just paid for it.

No, Ross won't fess up; he's too embedded in his lies and deceit to realize it himself. SOP for the Alexandrian Cult, and now, as evidenced, it's seeped its way into "IFB" circles as well.

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.