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.

Basic Introduction to Dispensationalism

My last post was in response to a blog that was against Dispensationalism, but since there are a lot of readers/friends that might not be entirely or accurately familiar with what Moderate Dispensationalism teaches, or at least what I believe, I decided to put together a post to help explain what Dispensationalism.

Explaining Dispensational theology in one post is about as explanatory as describing an internal combustion engine by saying that it burns gas and turns a shaft to run a car. By that, I mean that Dispensationalism is such a vast and complex topic that a cursory explanation does little more than create a thousand questions in the minds of the readers, and in this case, almost every reader is going to have a thousand different questions than any other reader! However, I think it is important to make an attempt, if simply to help provide a well-rounded experience when it comes to Bible doctrine, as well as to open up dialogue with people who have never seen the Bible in this light.

Buckle up: here we go!

A Response to Anti-Dispensationalism

I know of few people that describe themselves as "anti-dispensationalists." Many I know would distance themselves from Dispensationalism, calling it "Ruckmanism," of all things, but until recently I had heard of very few people that would actually believe that Dispensational theology is unbiblical. For instance, the church I grew up in did not teach what I call Rightly Dividing, that God dealt with different people differently at different times in history: i.e. Adam was given different commands than Noah who was given different commands than Abraham, etc. Israel was unquestionably required to keep the WORKS of the Law: yes they were a picture of Christ, but they had absolutely no clue about that! Also, Jesus taught meekness and non-violence, but to Jews only, while Paul taught forbearance as much as possible and called people fools, directly contrary to Christ's command in Matthew 5:22.

Then, even more recently, I saw a link to a blog posted by someone: the title of the blog actually stated that they were against Dispensationalism. I eventually came to find that they were post-milleniallists, which started to make sense, and I was asked by a couple of people to respond to the blog post in question. This is that response: I hope you can at least learn something of my stance, even if I'm not able to change your doctrinal stance.

Preaching about Preaching??

In my years in Bible Believing, Baptist churches, I've heard many good sermons. I've tried to make a habit of taking notes, especially with visiting pastors, and I've even "borrowed" some of their material to make my own sermons.

On the other hand, I've heard a lot of bad sermons. And I mean BAD. For instance, a while back I saw a YouTube video of a young whippersnapper preaching an entire sermon against another preacher, a man FOUR TIMES HIS AGE. Not only was this young novice incredibly ignorant about the man (he called Dr. Ruckman a Brider!?!?), but he was railing against an Elder, one against whom he was not to receive an accusation (1 Tim. 5:19), and someone whom he is to entreat as a father (1 Tim. 5:1). For this young kid to behave so reprehensibly in just that one "sermon," so proudly displayed on YouTube, is an absolute disgrace, and proves that he is indeed a novice who is NOT grave, nor sober minded, nor fit for the ministry in the least.

A second message by this loud-mouth was on "watered down preaching," a topic that while I agree with and understand the importance of sound, biblical preaching, I hardly think is a topic that deserves its own sermon!! A cursory look at the common fare of this young person's sermons shows that he is extremely heavy on sin, standards, and separation, and preaching on doctrine, spiritual topics, and FOOD for the SHEEP is severely lacking.

This is the largest problem in "Independent, Fundamental, Skirt-wearin', Hellfire and damnation preachin', oh yeah and King James only Baptist" circles today: too many people are majoring on the minors and minoring on the majors!!! Yes, we need to preach righteousness. Yes, it is important to preach hard and straight. Yes, it is important to draw a line sometimes. BUT IT DOESN'T FEED THE SHEEP! If you have a church full of nothing but hard preaching and standards, you'll have a bunch of shallow people who will be blown away the first time a Jehovah's Witness shows them something that's "wrong" in their Bible or a "truth" that you don't teach or that contradicts what little doctrine your people get. Your people will know that speaking in tongues is wicked, but they won't know WHY. They will know that they are supposed to dress modestly, but they will dress the way YOU WANT THEM TO because THAT'S what you preach instead of what the BIBLE SAYS.

A good, balanced church is comprised of three different types of discourse: Doctrinal teaching, Spiritual preaching, and Practical application to help them in their day-to-day lives. A church with too much of one kind or too little of another will be imbalanced and will lead to dry or shallow Christians who don't have what it takes to be a shining light in our communities.

Pardon the rant, but doctrinally-decrepit loudmouths are getting on my nerves lately, and since this is my blog, I figured I'd take advantage and say something.

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

What's so hard to understand about Eternal Security??

I just chatted with a young lady that I hadn't talked to in a couple years, and to my chagrin she has gotten involved with a "Community Church" thingamajig. You know the drill: gotta' learn Greek, no final authority but God, no eternal security, speaking in tongues, healing, the whole bit.

My question to her, which she was unable to answer (even though she's attending "Bible" school through her church), was simply "where does the Bible say that a person can rescind their salvation?" (Ok, I didn't use exactly those words, but it's the same idea.)

First thing, people that believe like she does have no clue what the New Birth of John 3 means. They don't understand that people are reborn into God's Image, the Image that Adam lost by his disobedience. Jesus, the LAST ADAM, retrieved that Image by His obedience, allowing us to again be "made in His image." Not since Adam's sin, until the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, had anyone been "reborn." Jesus hadn't paid the penalty and retrieved the crown of the Kingdom of God (spiritual) yet!

Secondly, they have no idea about Spiritual Circumcision. It's laid out so clearly in Scripture, but their belief in optional Security prove that they have no clue about predestination to the conformation of Christ or what the "operation of God" is in Colossians 2:12.

Note: every time Paul says "I would not have ye to be ignorant, brethren," the brethren are ALWAYS IGNORANT!

The sons of God

I love deep, complex topics. I really enjoy digging deep within the passages of the Bible, finding deep meaning and uncovering personal truths. I even enjoy when a book expounds something to me that I'd never noticed about the Bible. It's true that there are more books written about the Bible than any single other topic, yet there's always something new to be found within its pages.

I firmly believe that there is a Gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; I do NOT believe in evolution, "Theistic" evolution, the "Day-Age" theory or any of that other nonsense. I do not believe in pre-Adamic death or human races; to believe such things is to go against clear Scriptures about death, sin and God's creation. What I DO believe, however, is that God's first earth (and heaven-SINGULAR) was inhabited by a race of spiritual beings, known in the Bible as the "sons of God." Today we know them as angels and devils: angels are the perfect beings that have served God from the Creation, and devils are those that rebelled against God and were cast out with Satan. In the cataclysmic battle that followed (paralleled in Rev. 12), the entire creation of God was destroyed: i.e. "without form and void." I believe this whole occurence was likely less than 1,000 years long; perhaps it parallels in reverse the Tribulation period (1,000 years of peace, 7 year rebellion, destruction and recreation?).

Regardless, we know that these "sons of God" were present at the creation, even before Adam.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

(emphasis mine)

Obviously these creatures, whoever they were, were present at the creation and beheld God's wondrous power that fashioned the earth out of nothing. These same beings show up in the first part of Job:

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.

and again:

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

These creatures are obviously spiritual, for one cannot physically present himself before God and converse with Him vocally, nor was that possible in those days. They also show up in Genesis 6 (don't give me this "godly line of Seth" nonsense; that's completely retarded), so these guys are rather well-known. But the question anyone might ask is "why are they called 'sons of God'?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

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.

Here, Adam is called the "son of God." Why?

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Why is that relevant, you ask? Well let's see: Adam was made in God's image, a trichotomy. The other "sons of God" (Angels and fallen angels; sorry, spoiler) were also made in God's image, though they were completely spiritual (though able to take physical form). So we've established that the "sons of God" are those that have the image of God.

Today, mankind is made in the "image" of ADAM, NOT God. When Adam fell, the part of him that communed with God died, and his soul became inextricable with his body: i.e. for the rest of the Old Testament, until the writings of Paul, "soul" and "body" are completely, 100% synonomous. Therefore, anyone who is born today is a son of ADAM (C. S. Lewis had that right, messed up though he was!), NOT a son of God!

Why then are we called "sons of God"?

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Phil. 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Why? Well, at Salvation, something unusual (and a little "odd-sounding") happened to you: you were circumcised. Yes, even you ladies. Verses? OK.

Col. 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

(emphasis mine)

This circumcision had nothing to do with the "privy member," as the Bible says: it had to do with your SOUL and your BODY. Your body, or flesh, is permanently wicked: "in me, that is in my FLESH, dwelleth NO GOOD THING." Your OLD NATURE is perverse, wicked and vile, and all it wants to do is SIN. However, when you get saved, God performs an OPERATION without hands on you. Verse again? OK. Next verse, actually, so still in the same context:

Col. 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Amazing, isn't it? When that spiritual circumcision takes place, you are then a NEW CREATURE, created in the IMAGE of GOD. Therefore, you are now a son of God, made in His likeness and not Adam's! God cuts away your justified soul from your grave-bound body; the body returns to the dust, but your SOUL will now go to be with God forever when you die.

Oh the riches of the fulness of His grace!! Amazing love, how can it be, that THOU my GOD should'st die for ME!

Romans Road vs. Straight and Narrow

Occasionally someone shows up on the forum from whence I was last banned and starts arguing Salvation from Matthew or Hebrews or even the OT. It's hilarious, to be honest. They fall all over themselves, arguing Scriptures and trying to explain things away, while the heretic runs roughshod over them and makes them look like fools. Don't get me wrong, there are several nice, Godly people there, and I like several of them, but 98% of the people there can't answer a man like that.

The current fiasco is a "WWJD" type of guy, the kind that doesn't pay attention to mail addresses (see my earlier posts on that). He likes Jesus' message. Who doesn't? Blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers, etc. His message, while hard, is nice for the most part. And it's Jesus, so we should obey Him, right?

I Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

I Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me,

THREE times, Paul tells the CHURCH to follow him. Yes, the final object is Christ, because Paul followed Christ, but he commanded the Church to follow HIM three times. That's an indisputable fact, unless you like to argue with the Bible (not a smart thing to do).

So let's back up a little. Why Paul and not Jesus? Well, who was Jesus speaking to? Who did Jesus preach to? Most importantly, who did Jesus NOT preach to? Remember the Cyro-phonecian woman? Jesus called her a DOG! He said that it's not right to give the childrens' bread unto DOGS!! How's that for racial equality? Jesus didn't go to the Gentiles: He didn't preach to them, He didn't waste time on their ailments, He didn't try to convert them. He said that He was sent not but to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL!

Who was Paul sent to? Who did he preach and write to? God said that Paul was to be a witness to the Gentiles. He was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and also the messenger to the Church (9 books addressed to churches?).

So, are you going to take a Jewish gospel, from a Jewish preacher, to a Jewish nation, and believe that, when God Himself said that Paul was the preacher to the Gentiles, and in turn the church? So, Romans or the Sermon on the Mount? Chop off your hand or live peaceably as much as lieth in you? Endure to the end or He'll keep us from falling?

Your choice. God, however, is right and true, and His word never faileth.

Looked for a City

For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

I just love the Bible. It pops out and gets you sometimes! The other night, I was laying in bed with my wife just chatting about stuff (we couldn't get to sleep) and I was thinking about a discussion I've had in the past with certain people about Abraham and his Sanctification and Justification. I've dealt with that quite a few times, though those who fight with me about it never seem to get it, but that's fine: I can go over it again sometime.

Anyhow, I was thinking about Hebrews 11 and its relationship to Romans 4, and I couldn't remember whether Hebrews 11 said "foundation" or "foundations." Now, to the average Christian, that wouldn't make a bit of difference. However, to the avid Bible Believer, that changes everything! That single "s" means that Abraham wasn't looking for any old city: he was looking for the New Jerusalem!! I got really excited when I saw that: here's Abraham, in 1200+ BC, looking for the New Jerusalem that STILL hasn't shown up!

You might be thinking, "doesn't that create a big problem for you Dispensationalists that don't think Abraham was saved by grace through faith plus nothing else?" Well...nope. See, WE know that that is what Abraham was looking for. After the fact, when Hebrews was written, God revealed it to the author of that book and in turn to us. But, where does it say that Abraham knew what he was looking for? Hmm, good question! If you look through the Old Testament, almost every passage deals with physical blessing and curses; only Psalms and the Prophets really get deep into spiritual stuff. Why? Because the jews look for a sign! The Jews have ALWAYS been a sight-oriented people. They want to SEE something before they believe it. (sounds like Missouri!)

Basically, Abraham was just following God around, going where He said to go, doing what He said to do. He never found anything, and according to Hebrews 11, what he was looking for (whether he knew it or not) wasn't even around to be found!! God gave the promises to Abraham then, which he took as physical blessing, but in fact God was looking toward the day when the Jews will be given an enormous inheritance among the people of the earth! In fact, it's not Abraham's physical descendants that will inherit the New Jerusalem: it's the Church, the SPIRITUAL children of Abraham that will live in the New Jerusalem!

It never ceases to amaze me how deep and complex the Bible is! I can't wait to get to Heaven and know the mind of God....that thought is almost enough to fry your brain!!

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

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.