Waymarks 44 Spring 2006

Report of Open Air Preaching

16^th November LUTON TOWN CENTRE. Market Hill. Preached as usual, beginning by quoting John 3:16 – 19. A young girl came and stood next to me. As she didn’t interrupt, I turned to speak to her, which was a mistake. Her first question was “Have you considered the Church of the Latter Day Saints?” I think she called it by a different name, but I can’t remember it.

I explained that I came across this evil cult 50 years ago and I would like to ask her a question, “What think ye of Christ? Do you acknowledge Him to be the Son of God, eternal, uncreated?” “Oh yes” came the reply, “our church teaches that”. So you acknowledge Him to be in full possession of Deity, in equality with the Father, the fullness of the Godhead residing in Him?” “Definitely not” she replied. “So you just lied to me, didn’t you?” “Do you not know that Christ said, ‘before Abraham was, I Am’?”

I tried to warn her away from this pernicious cult and turn to Christ for salvation but she turned away, and her parting shot was, “I hope you soon find the way!” I just had time to tell her I found The Way more than 50 years ago.

I started to preach and again was interrupted. Two young men had a theological problem. It seemed they believed in Creation, but why didn’t\the Bible say more about it? “Isn’t there enough?” I asked. “How much does one need in order to believe it?”

They tried a different approach. “Why does the Bible talk about a man going about naked and causing trouble for his son?” I had to think about this one. “I think you are talking about Noah after the flood.” I replied. I explained this incident to them and told them why this record was given in Scripture. This seemed to satisfy them so they went on their way. I think they were Muslims.

8^th December DUNSTABLE Ashton Square. A woman tapped my arm as I was preaching. When I stopped she told me how God had spoken to her fifteen years ago, and had given her instructions as to how He was going to judge the world. She was not permitted to pass these instructions on lest she was recognized. I tried to tell her that God had written it all down for anybody to read,. She confessed she had never read the Bible. I started to tell her how she might avoid this judgment but it became clear that the poor woman had mental problems. The roadsweeper who stopped near to us was, she declared, a spy. He was searching the rubbish to collect evidence against her, she told me. However she did accept a copy of The Reason Why but she couldn’t understand why I was giving it to her. Her name is Mary. (I ask people their names so that I can pray for them.)

4^th January LTC. George Street. I began in my usual way by quoting John 3: 16 but was not half way through the verse when I was interrupted. A man wanted me to hear his life story. This I have discovered is often a prelude to a request for the bus fare home or for the price of a cup\of tea. It was bus fare in the case of this man. But he slipped up by telling me he was living rough. He was also clean shaven. However, as he had accepted a Reason Why from me, I thought a pound towards his fare might induce him to read it.

I did manage to give him a little of my life story ─ the bit where I got saved.

11^th January LTC. A young woman stood listening to the gospel. She appeared to approve of what she heard. When I finished she came over to speak to me, and asked me what were my ecclesiastical connections. I told her where I met with other Christians should she be interested in coming along. I took her to be a believer but then noticed that she was carrying a wad of papers and I could just see the heading on the top one. It read Our Lady, help of Christians. I thought therefore if she found no fault in my preaching I must be losing my grip. Then it struck me that she was seriously brainwashed, accepting all\my statements as within her own experience. That is, being RC she would believe herself to be “born again”, “converted” ,”saved” “on the way to heaven” “forgiven” or whatever. This is a ruse of popery. One must not think that a person who regularly attends mass, thereby blaspheming the name of Christ, could be a saved person.

1^st February LTC. When I began to preach several Asians came and sat nearby. It seemed a little ominous but they did not oppose me in any way. Of course, if they were faithful to the Koran they would kill me and along with all non-muslims. At present, in this country they are afraid of the consequences. But today they listened to the gospel and maybe one soul might be brought into the light. They heard today that the true and living God is the One Saviour God and is Father of the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

We have to bear in mind that Muslims are brainwashed into their religion. Fear and violence are the tools used in brainwashing. More than one child told me when I was teaching, that they were beaten by the imams for not learning the Koran fast enough. The imams would knuckle them on their heads. This goes on in England today. One child told me her cousin received brain damage by this treatment. When the call comes we do not doubt that all the “peace loving” moderate Muslims will rise up.

Why did “moderate” Muslims stage a demonstration against a few cartoons that had been published months earlier? Why do they not demonstrate against Saudi Muslims who hold Mohammed in contempt?

AV Verses Vindicated

Matthew 9: 13

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

“to repentance” is missing from modern versions. This explains why repentance is missing from modern preaching. The Lord said, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. The removal of repentance ensures that multitudes of false Christians will go to the lake of fire.

The words are well attested in the Greek manuscripts and were removed in a few spurious manuscripts.

We note that J N Darby chopped these Spirit given words from his own translation. This will account for the unwillingness to preach repentance by those who follow Darby today.

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.

Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton. ketos (whale) is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation. It is better then simply to believe the Bible.

The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale.

We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea.

John 18: 5,6

I am he. (ego eime)

Those who claim this to be an expression of deity, and that he should be omitted from the reading will have to grant the same for the man who received his sight in John 9: 9.

He identified himself likewise with the words “I am he,” (ego eime)

See my notes on John 18: 5,6 in AV Verses Vindicated, Vol.1, Matt – Romans.

Acts 4: 24

And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Modern versions alter Thou art God to “thou art he”. Men do not like the deity of God to be acknowledged. The expression is in the Received Text.

By the Way....

I thought that What is wrong with the Brethren in issue No.43 would raise a few eyebrows if not objections. Only one person asked to be removed from my mailing list. At least I know that one person

So, a little more about our non-discerning teaching fraternity. One of them told me a long time ago that he did not ask questions concerning internal problems in any assembly he might visit. No of course not. One might not feel so free to visit an assembly if one knew a leading brother there thought the Lord capable of any sin. One’s engagements might dwindle if “judgments” are made.

There exists in Luton and Dunstable a Fellowship of Churches. There are two in fact that overlap. There is the united South Bedfordshire Missionary organisation, comprising Onslow Road Gospel Hall, Selbourne Gospel Hall, Birdsfoot Lane Felllowship, and Langdale Evangelical Church. This latter is also a member of Dunstable Fellowship of Evangelical Churches, together with West Street Baptist Church and Dunstable Baptist Church. Most of the Brethren “Teachers” have no qualms associating with this liberal neo-evangelical conglomeration. They tell me they don’t agree with it but maybe their ministry will have an impact. So they don’t really believe in separation.

A correspondent writes,

“I realize that some do not appreciate your critical style of writing, but if it promotes a study of the Scriptures, so that one might rightly divide them, and they become better workmen for Him, I cannot see why they raise so many objections.”

Those who object to my criticisms are usually supportive of the Critical Text! It is this CT, promoted by our teaching fraternity, that is the main object of my criticisms. Those who hold to the CT tend to be very uncritical of it, and very undiscerning. Very few have examined the issues involved. They hold to it with a blind and bigoted tenacity. The very foundation of the faith is a Bible we can trust implicitly from cover to cover. That is how it was for me fifty years ago. Now I have to make choices; do I believe my Bible or do I believe the preacher? It is often impossible to do both. But for me there is in fact no choice. Let God be true and every man a liar.

If a man criticises my Bible I shall be very wary of his doctrines. If I hear him do this once I shall not go and listen to him the second time.

We read in the Ritchie publication Believers Magazine, February 2006, these words, ''After the darkness of those three hours.-.. what joy, what relief it must have been to Him now to cry ''Father" taking His position again as the Son of God."

Thus Brethren now teach that for three hours Christ ceased to hold the position of the Son of God. The implication of this statement is Christ was not God’s Son for three hours.

The writer goes on, ".... Back from the Godforsaken position, back into the Father's hands...."

Was the Son of God ever out of the Father's hands?

Was Isaac on Moriah out of Abraham's hands? Did God the Father show less love to His S on than did Abraham to Isaac ? Did Isaac cease to be Abraham’s son for a while? Was Christ indeed only forsaken for the three hours of darkness? This view depends on the twisting of Scripture to read "Why didst Thou forsake me?"

The same expression occurs in 2 Tim. 4: 10, Demas hath forsaken me. I understand that the same Greek word and tense is used in both places. So perhaps Demas DID forsake Paul for a while but was restored by the time Paul wrote his epistle?

Campbell Morgan wrote concerning the three hours of darkness,

I submit thoughtfully that no interpretation of that darkness is to be trusted save that of the Lord who experienced it. Has He flung any light on the darkness which will enable us to apprehend the meaning of the darkness? Did any word escape His lips that will help us to explain those silent hours? I think the answer is to be found in these narratives, and to that teaching of the Lord we appeal in order that we may consider the meaning of the darkness, and the passing of the darkness, and thereafter attempt reverently to look back at the transaction in the darkness.

The Lord said This is your hour and the power of darkness. (Lk. 22: 53) God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1: 5). What communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6: 14) Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness. (Eph. 5: 11)

Satan rules the darkness of this world (Eph. 6: 12). The kingdom of the beast is to be full\of darkness.

The awful darkness of those three hours was permitted by the Father. There is no Scripture that tells us what took place during those hours and therefore it is not for us to know.

Another strange teaching I heard recently is, I quote, “on earth the Lord laid aside his manifestations of deity”. If changing water into wine is not a manifestation of deity then it must have been some kind of conjuring trick. John tells us the miracle was a manifestation of His glory. Such glory, openly displayed there at Cana, was the glory pertaining to deity.

There in the New Bradwell Gospel Hall we heard a direct attack on the person of Christ. It was made by B Chapman, a trustee of the liberal Counties organisation which is interdenominational and promotes female preachers.

New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

We reviewed the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible in Issue no.40. We pointed out it is an attempt to return the AV to its pre-1629 condition. Thus all the typological errors have been replaced. Even obvious printers errors have been replaced.

We are rather surprised therefore to read a favourable review on Ian Paisley's Website .

Paisley wrote a book ''A plea for the old Sword '- A defence of the AV Bible which is well worth reading.

Now we learn that ' Some of the more antiquated aspects, have been 'eased out" And the Apocrypha has been' eased back in" . so what about Paisley’s “old Sword”. Does he think that after all, in line with all reformists, that it is a bit blunt after all? And it seems he is not so anti- Rome after all. The Apocrypha has been returned to this neo-AV Bible.

Inspiration and Infallibility of Scripture according to J N Darby

Darby was unswerving in his belief that the Bible was the inspired, infallible Word of God, absolutely authoritative and faithfully transmitted from the original autographs. If the world itself were to disappear and be annihilated, asserts Darby, "and the word of God alone remained as an invisible thread over the abyss, my soul would trust in it. After deep exercise of soul I was brought by grace to feel I could entirely. I never found it fail me since. I have often failed; but I never found it failed me." ─Larry V Crutchfield; John Nelson Darby; Defender of the Faith.

If Darby thought this about the Bible, why did he rewrite it? Or was he speaking of his own version?

Dishonour to the Holy Spirit according to W E Vine

(taken from The Mistaken Term, “The Brethren” by W E Vine)

[Those meeting in Gospel Halls] cannot help what others call them, but that any in such companies should tacitly accept this unscriptural title [of Brethren] is greatly to be deprecated. Its use is dishonouring to the Spirit of God and a falsification of the actual position of any Scripturally formed assembly. The flippant or jocular way in which the appellation, or some modification of it such as "the P.B.'s" or "the Plyms," is sometimes used, is also to be deprecated. The work of the Holy Spirit in enabling believers to gather according to the Scriptures, to be formed into local assemblies by His power and with the recognition of His rights and prerogatives to provide spiritual gifts for the care of each company, and to control and guide their worship, is all too sacred to permit of the use of such terms. There are those who do so who have never discovered the truth from the Word of God, and are ignorant of what the Scriptures teach as to assembly principles and of the way in which they are being maintained. Such epithets are part of the misunderstanding or taunts which those who are faithful to Christ have to endure, but let them never be accepted or used by any members of such assemblies themselves.

Any other forms of gathering than what is practiced by those “mistakenly called the brethren” is, wrote Vine, the traditions of the systems of Christendom. In other words, Baptists, Methodists, Free Evangelical Churchers, ets, dishonour the Holy Spirit by their very association. Their ecclesiastical practices have to be regarded as anathema and the true brother will shun them.

I happen to agree with what was taught by Vine and others concerning the local assembly of believers relating to most of our practices. I have been in assembly fellowship for 50 years and entered by deep personal conviction which is not the case for most. I am not considering going elsewhere. But there is an aspect that disturbs me very much concerning our leading brethren. I include those who were in at the beginning of the Gospel Hall era , Darby, Kelly, Wigram, up to present times. There is a united hostility to the Authorized Bible and there always has been. There is a united hostility to the preaching of repentance and there always has been. So can our leaders be trusted in what they teach?

W E Vine had no problems having fellowship with the Brethren apostate, F F Bruce. They were both scholars. Bruce, in his forward to Vine’s Dictionary, tells how Vine drew on the wells of infidelity to produce his Dictionary. He leaned heavily on the Nazi Kittel for definitions of Greek words. Kittel was a Nazi war criminal and was tried and found guilty at Nuremberg.

Vine thought that an educated godless Jew hater was of far more value than a saved ploughboy in touch with his God.

If our leaders are desperately wrong in fundamental issues how could they be so dogmatically right in how we meet together? I only ask because I would like to know. I can think of no matter more fundamental than whether God has given us a trustworthy Bible or not. The Brethren say “NOT”!

Who are the Overcomers?

The overcomers of Scripture are believers of course.

One of the clearest verses on this is 1 John 5: 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

The born again believer overcomes the world. This is not merely a goal to aim at. It is a victory won and held on the grounds of faith. The non-overcomer is without faith.

1 John 5: 5. says Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God. The person who never overcomes the world does not believe Jesus to be the Son of God. We note that in the defective gospel now being preached there is no call to believe Jesus to be the Son of God. 9

The overcomers at Ephesus (Rev. 2) will eat of the tree of life. The non-overcomers therefore will not eat of the tree of life. I.e. they miss heaven.

At Smyrna the overcomer will not be hurt of the second death. The, non-overcomer therefore goes to the Lake of Fire.

Pergamos overcomers likewise will enjoy the blessings of eternal life throughout eternity and the overcomers will miss out. The Thyatiran overcomers marked by faithfulness, will sit in judgment over the nations. The Sardian overcomers will be clothed in white raiment and their names are secure in the book of life. The non-overcomer will perish, his name being excluded from the book of life. The Philadelphian overcomer has a secure place in heaven. The non-overcomer we believe has a place in hell.

Finally, at Laodicea the overcomer shares with Christ upon His throne.

In all these seven churches the overcoming is associated with the trials that had to be borne. Read also Re. 21: 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. It is seen that the overcomer is the one with an inheritance and is among the sons of God.

The young men (believers) have overcome the wicked one 1 John 2: 13. They are not exhorted to overcome Satan, They have done it through being converted.

Little children (in the faith) have overcome the evil spirits with their false doctrines. 1 John 4: 4.

The converted soul is an overcomer. All true believers are overcomers. This does not teach sinless perfection but the converse denies the eternal security of the soul.

Why I pray using “Thee” and “Thou”

I pray privately and publicly using “thee” and “thou” because that is how I was taught when I first got saved in 1955. My teachers taught me by example. They were all young men under the age of 25 and they came from a variety of denominations. We were all servicemen.

In those days no one thought of praying differently. This was largely because we all held to the Authorized Bible. This version maintained the singular forms even though they had passed out of common usage in the English language before it was printed in 1611 AD. They were kept because they made an accurate translation from the Greek and Hebrew. Their usage in prayer gives a more reverent approach to the Father.

I pray using these singular personal pronouns not because of tradition . I was not brought up in Christian circles.

I was able to pray in this manner from the day I got saved. This had nothing to do with my education. I listened and learned.

I find that usually those who pray in modern style have little regard for the AV Bible and move in liberal neo-evangelical circles.

“Thee and thou” forms are still maintained in wedding services and other ceremonial occasions; e.g “I Tom Brown, take thee, Mary Jones, to be my lawful wedded wife”. There is a connotation of intimacy and affection in this.

I thank God for the English language which allows me to address deity in terms not found generally on the lips of the ungodly. If other languages do not allow this its users are that much the poorer.

A Lucky Dip Religion

Some people have a “lucky dip” religion. Their only recourse to a personal time of devotion is when they read their daily notes on the tear-off calendar. Or, in times of emergency they will open their bible at random in order to seek guidance.

Most of us know the story of one man who did this. In a crisis he opened his bible for advice and read, concerning Judas,”He went and hanged himself”. This was not quite what he wanted so he had another try. This time he read, “That thou doest, do quickly”.

Elective Grace

I have put in the box below every verse of Scripture relating to “elective grace”.

Elective grace is an old wive’s fable, derived from Calvinism. It is taught nowhere in Scripture and such a fable maligns the nature of God.

Critica Biblica

Critica Biblica, or Critical Notes on the Old testament Writings, was written by T K Cheyne, d.Litt., D.D,, Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford and Formerly Fellow of Balliol College, Canon of Rochester.

The humble ploughboy would have been deeply awed by such a learned gentleman. But we fear that as his book was published in 1904, he has long since been consigned to the everlasting flames of hell. The book reveals a burning hatred towards God and towards the work of the Holy Spirit.

I will give you but one example of his work and I think you will then agree with me as to his eternal fate. (unless he got converted at a later date. If he was converted he would no doubt have been at great pains to withdraw his blasphemous works from circulation.}

Cheynes comments on Jonah,

The story in the Book of Jonah is, in fact, most probably a Midrash on 2 Ki. xiv. 25, explaining how the capital of Jerahmeel escaped destruction. ....The story of the tempest and the lot-casting may have once had an independent existence, and referred to some other person than jonah. it looks much like folk-lore. The “great fish” seems an editorial edition in the style of the reference to the dragon in Jer. li. 34, 44; it implies the favourite dragon-myth.. In iii. 3 the editor [the reader must understand that Jonah didn’t write Jonah] fell into much error.

Those who deny the account in Jonah of his being swallowed by a whale, Mtt. 12: 40, deny Christ, His death and resurrection. Those who argue that the word should be fish will argue themselves into hell. Those who argue that there were/are no whales in the Mediterranean are too ignorant to bother with.

The second largest animal ever to have lived on this planet, the Fin Whale, is still seen in the Med. it grows up to 24 meters in length and weighs up to 80 tons. It feeds by swallowing large amounts at a time causing their throat furrows to expand.

The biggest fish is the Whale Shark which is a plankton eater (cannot swallow humans). The biggest fish do not have bellies as does the fin whale. Belly means hollow; cavity.

Cheynes was a mocker and today he has many sons and daughters.

******

QUOTE: “ When I go on a school visit I don’t go in with both guns blazing”.

"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the
blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the
counsel of God." Acts 20:26-27

QUOTE: “We find that headteachers are very appreciative of our visits”.

Woe nto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets. Luke 6: 26

Elder: Do you really believe your Bible from cover to cover?

Young man: Yes.

Elder: And do you believe it word for word?

Young man: Yes

Elder: And syllable by syllable?

Young man: Yes.

Elder: You’re obviously a KJV-Onlyer. A fanatic and an extremist. We won’t allow you to preach on our platform.

How not to defend the AVaccording to the English Churchman.

The English Churchman is a fortnightly newspaper. It carries a lot of anti-Rome news and is strongly Reformist. In the issue number 7679, 6^th & 13^th January 2006, E T Kirkland has an article “how not to defend the AV”.

He is angry with believers who believe the Authorized Version implicitly. These he describes as KJVOnlyers who “resort to neo-orthodox Bartianism (sic)”. Possibly he meant Barthianism. The article was very poorly proof-read.

Kirkland bases his argument in favour of a defective Authorized Bible on the grounds that there are two people who make outrageous claims for its perfection. These two are Ruckman and Riplinger. These two do indeed make strange claims for the AV and both are abusive towards those who disagree with them. They are extremists and their views are not shared by the majority of Bible believers. Kirkland knows this but they are useful to him in his attack.

Kirkland claims that God has preserved His word but not in modern versions. He does not go so far as to say the AV is the preserved word of God for then he would have to claim that God had preserved a lot of imperfections with it. The conclusion would be that the AV merely contains the word of God, or most of it, along with all the blemishes.

Kirkland’s god is indeed a god of blemishes. Kirkland appears never to have experienced a Biblical conversion. He writes, “the AV is the word of God, not because we say so, nor on the grounds of a mystical experience.” This is an ambiguous statement. We suspect he is referring to those who have been born again and hold to the Authorized Bible by faith. He is an ardent Calvinist.

The following issue of the EC continued to denigrate the AV Bible with an attack by W D Lewis. Most of his attack was based also on Ruckman and Riplinger. He also found fault with J Moorman over his article on the terms Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost as found in the AV Bible. Those who have read Moorman’s Conies, Brass & Easter (Lewis appears unaware this is a collection of articles) where this discussion is found, even if they do not agree with him (I do) will be compelled to admit this is an acceptable and balanced explanation of why the two terms are kept in the AV. Lewis scathingly points out that the Mormans use the AV, “and make a distinction between “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit”. In Mormanism the “Holy Ghost” is a personage, or a god, but the “Holy Spirit” is an impersonal force. Of course, this very strange doctrine was never held by the early Church, and is not held by mainstream Christianity today.”

We note Lewis is unable to fault Dr Moorman’s exegesis. His remarks plainly do not relate to Dr Moorman’s words at all.

The English Churchman while containing much useful information, is committed to the errors of Calvinism and the denigration of the Authorized Bible. The Trinitarian Bible Society is in the same camp along with Bible League.

I have no problems believing an omnipotent God is able to preserve His word inerrantly between the covers of one Book. The blemishes are in the eye of the beholder.

The following article is taken from the Way of Life Website. It deals with an issue that is denied by many among us today. viz. that doctrine is not affected by changes in the modern versions.

DO THE MODERN VERSIONS CHANGE DOCTRINE?

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature?s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright by David W. Cloud. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites and cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, give us your name, address, and the name of the church you are a member of, and request to be placed on the list.

Please note that this is not a free service. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and each subscriber is expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days to activate. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 17th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site - http://www.wayoflife.org.]

February 11, 1996 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following material first appeared in /O Timothy/ magazine, Volume 12, Issue 3, 1995.

Many contend that the modern Greek texts and the new versions do not change doctrine. These do not understand the nature of the changes which have been made. This is something akin to Neo-orthodoxy. The critical text is not a frontal attack on truth; it is a clever infiltration. The attack of the modern versions is not tanks blasting; it is termites eating. The modern versions don't wholly omit doctrines (unless it is the doctrine of fasting) but they undermine many doctrines, and doctrine in general, by deleting repetitious passages, omitting titles of Christ, deleting a key passage here and there, questioning other key passages—a little cut here, a little doubt there. It is easy to underestimate the overall effect. The eclectic Greek text upon which the modern versions are founded is a shorter text than the Received Text underlying the King James Bible. The modern text omits thousands of words and phrases, an amount of text equaling the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter.

The area of repetition is an interesting one. In Genesis 41:32 Joseph explains to Pharaoh why God repeated the dream. It was to reinforce the authority and impact of the message. Jesus Christ often used the term "verily, verily" to emphasize the importance of what He was saying. Many phrases are repeated almost to tediousness in the Bible. "They shall know that I am the Lord" in Ezekiel is an example. Peter's vision prior to his being sent to Cornelius shows how God uses repetition to reinforce a point. He repeated the vision three times. This is the purpose of biblical repetition. Yet the critical text and the modern versions reduce the repetition and thereby reduce the power and impact of God's Word in a subtle yet very real manner. For example, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 have the same warning that man lives by every word of God. That message is weakened in the modern versions by the omission of the last half of the verse in Luke 4:4. Christ's sermon on Hell in Mark 9 contains another example. That is a passage that shook me up before I was saved. It is probably the most powerful sermon on Hell in the Bible. Three times Christ repeated His warning that Hell is a place "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (verses 44,46,48).

This sermon in the modern versions is not as hot. It is hot, because the fire is still there in verse 44, but it is not as hot as the sermon in the Received Text and the KJV, because verses 46 and 48 are omitted.

By removing some of the repetition of the Bible, the modern versions weaken the overall standard of doctrine. The critical text is shorter roughly by the amount of text equal to the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter. And the critical text is weak; it is soft; it is less forceful; overall it is more hesitant in presenting the great doctrines of the faith. It IS a theologically corrupt text.

See also "Bible Doctrines Affected by Modern Versions"

<../../articles/doctrine.htm>

TREGELLES AND CO

This statement is taken from brethren.org.nz/about the brethren.

A comparatively large proportion of the first generation of Brethren were well-trained biblical scholars. Many brought into the movement, and continued to build on, credible theological degrees. The contribution of some like G.V.Wigram and S.P.Tregelles to philology and textual criticism is still respected in academic circles today. This dependence on those who have offered their biblical scholarship in the service of our churches has continued though often publicly deprecated right up to today. W.E.Vine and F.F.Bruce are household names to my generation, not only to those who are Christian Brethren but also to evangelical households - globally. The recent calls for a return to the study of our biblical roots highlight the importance of all of us especially the full-time bible teachers amongst us digging deeper in serious study of the scriptures once more. The swing in New Zealand during the 1980s and 1990s to a merely subjective personal spiritual experience has proved inadequate as a foundation for effective faith. We are witnessing a fresh hunger for the objective, but personally experienced, teaching of the Word of God to give some depth to spiritual claims. This is an open invitation to re-present for the good of the whole Christian community what we claim to have known as central in our movement since the beginning.

The four men mentioned were scholars indeed. Their hostility to the Received Text has been well documented. Bruce’s hostility to evangelical truth is well known. These men have done much towards the apostasy of “Brethrenism” and, it seems, towards the apostasy of evangelical Christendom generally.

We note that a “subjective personal spiritual experience” is decried among New Zealand assemblies. Does this mean that in the 1980s and 1990s many false professions were being made? Does it mean that for 20 years those who got saved showed an opposition to the critical text brigade and now they have been overcome? I don’t know. A return to what these four men promoted will bring disaster.

"Shadows Changed"

See, the rows are emptied of their wards,

The cobwebs hang across the mildewed boards;

Windows are smashed; the door hangs off, and more—

A torn Youth Praise lies wretched on the floor.

"What made them go?” I whispered to my ancient guide.

"An evil spirit passed this way, and passing, lied.

Soughing low to that murmuring throng,

'You cannot trust your Bible for the wording is all wrong!'"

"They should not have listened!" I cried with dread.

My mentor shook his wizened head.

Mere lackeys to the Foe’s great force.

He charmed them into thinking they were wise,

Thus folly brought them to this sad demise."

"So all is lost?" I searched my friend's wan face.

"Not so!" he cried and pushed into my embrace

A Book. —The Old One, with language that we'd once adored.

I read; the shadows changed, and looking up, I saw my Lord.

R S

A paper copy of Waymarks can be sent to you if you email me. (UK only)

Ron

waymarks@ntlworld.com