Tag: Bible

Book Plunge: Christian Body – Do You Trust The Bible?

Is going nude a sign of believing the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this section, Frost says the following:

The controversy exists because most people who call themselves Christians are not familiar with the Bible except the parts read to them on Sunday mornings by preachers speaking from motivated confirmation bias. Christians typically assume many beliefs that are nowhere in the Bible, or they add teachings because they do not trust it to stand on its own.

Frost, Aaron. Christian Body: Modesty and the Bible (p. 273). UNKNOWN. Kindle Edition.

Sadly, this is very true.

My family and I loved the show Home Improvement and we usually saw Tim Allen movies in the theater together. Recently, Allen has been sharing on social media how he has been going through the Bible for the first time and that there’s a lot of good stuff in there. Some people I saw were surprised saying they thought he was a Christian.

It seemed sad to have to see people say “Just because you’re a Christian, it doesn’t mean you have read the Bible.”

Whatever you might think about Bart Ehrman, he is certainly right when he says that he has students come in for their first class and he asks them if they think the Bible is the Word of God. So many hands go flying up. Then he asks “How many of you have read all of the Bible?” Far fewer hands go up. Ehrman is right to ask that if you think the Bible is from God, don’t you think you should want to know what it says?

But to get back to what Frost says, a problem I have had with the book is that we are expected to have chapter and verse. No. You don’t. There are many issues that we ask about today that aren’t discussed in the Bible because they weren’t around in Biblical times. Can a Christian see an R-rated movie? Can a Christian play a video game that has violence? Can a Christian listen to rock’n’roll? We can even consider topics like dating as we know them weren’t around back then. Most marriages were arranged.

This is why it’s a misnomer to think there has to be a chapter and verse that says “Thou shalt wear clothing in public!” or “Thou dost not hath to wear clothing in public!” For this, we go to the work of cultural scholarship with an interest in the Biblical culture. We can look at pagan cultures, but only in comparison to the Biblical culture.

One advantage of being at a seminary besides a library is that you have so many great minds right here. When the idea of archaeological evidence came up, I decided to go talk to our professor of archaeology and we have had a number of great conversations on the topic. Something fascinating he told me is that outside of pottery, the most common item dug up in Israel is loomweights.

This first conversation where he said this took place at the Post Office where I work. He showed me a book he had just got about the culture of the time and pointed out that even the idols of the pagan deities depicted them wearing clothing and told me that Jews would not do nude artwork, for instance, because that would be close to violating the second commandment for them.

Frost’s issue doesn’t come down to one side believes the Bible or not. Francis Beckwith said once that if they can’t trump you with logic, they will try to trump you with spirituality. It comes down to how we interpret the Bible. I try to look not just to chapter and verse, but also to the culture of the Bible and see what I can gleam from that and something disappointing about Frost’s book is he seems completely unaware of this important research.

Next time, we’ll wrap this book up.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 1

What do I think of Farhan Iqbal’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So at the start, Iqbal is an Ahmadiyya Muslim. I understand this is not a sect that many Muslims consider orthodox, but the arguments are still incredibly similar. Also, they do have a promised Messiah figure already from their own number. Finally, many quotes will have names that have an “as” right after them, which is a way of wishing peace upon the person.

So the first chapter is about the Bible. Right off, we’re told that the scholars generally agree that the Gospels are written around 40 years after the crucifixion and are not eyewitnesses. Unfortunately, none of these scholars are named. No arguments against the authorship of Matthew and John are given. No interaction is done with Richard Bauckham’s work. We are not told why we should trust the Qur’an which is around 600 years later. If the Muslim wants to say Allah is behind the Qur’an, a Christian could just as easily say the Holy Spirit is behind the Gospels.

He then lists some requirements for writing history and they are:

It is necessary for a historian to avoid exaggeration; secondly, there should be no weakness in his memory; thirdly, he should have sound judgment and not be a person confined to superficial thinking; fourthly, he should be a researcher and not confine himself to shallow matters; fifthly, whatever he writes should be eyewitness testimony, not a compilation of good and bad material.[

Iqbal, Farhan. The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 349-352). Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at Canada. Kindle Edition.

I don’t know of any historian who uses these criteria and Iqbal doesn’t tell me who they are. I don’t know of any ancient historian who did this. Exaggeration would even be seen as adding color I suspect to an account. Readers recognize exaggeration.

So what examples does he give that show the accounts aren’t historical? In John 21:25, we are told that Jesus did so much that I suppose the whole world couldn’t contain the books that would be written if all He did was told. I have spent many years debating atheists. I have not met one who would say this is a problem text. All of them would know that whoever wrote this is using exaggeration to say something and credibility doesn’t rely on it.

The second is Luke 9:58 saying the Son of Man has no place to lay His head, when Jesus had a money bag and several patrons. Again, not a problem. Jesus is comparing Himself to Wisdom and saying He has no full habitation on Earth.

The next is in Matthew 2:23 where the prophets said Jesus would be called a Nazarene. Now this is a real one that has been raised. My look at this is the only place where Matthew says that this was done to fulfill the prophetS with a Scriptural citation. The idea then is that Jesus would be seen as a rejected figure in His time, a Nazarene.

Next he goes to Matthew 5:43 where Jesus says it was said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy. Iqbal is right in saying this is not found in the Torah, but the thought is that this is how Jesus’s contemporaries understood the text. If you love your neighbor, then the corollary to that would be to hate your enemy. Jesus tells us to love even him.

He later tells us that if someone goes to a tomb expecting to find a dead person and he’s not there, there are two possibilities. They went to the wrong tomb or the person wasn’t dead in the first place. There are more possibilities I can think of easily and even skeptical scholars have thought of them. It’s worth pointing out that the Ahmadiyya think that Jesus went to Kashmir, India after recovering from the crucifixion, but more on that later.

Next, Iqbal goes to 1 John 5:7-8 to go after the Trinity and cites Bart Ehrman in his defense. Most every evangelical scholar if not all of them knows that’s not something in the original text. It’s not a problem to go to multiple texts to show a doctrine like Iqbal thinks it is.

Iqbal also asks how we can trust Paul when he says that to the Jews he became like a Jew and to the Greeks, a Greek. Such a person doesn’t understand Paul is really talking about cultural sensibilities and not doing anything to needlessly offend a group. If you want to reach Jews, you don’t go in eating a pork sandwich. If you want to reach Hindus, you don’t invite them over and share a hamburger. You might even love those foods, but you don’t do it in front of them. I love my tea, but I avoid it in front of Mormons.

On the crucifixion, he says that such an event would bring doubt about the message of Jesus since He would be under a curse. Exactly! That was the point! His enemies wanted Him to be seen as under the curse of God and thus everything He said is called into question. However, a divine resurrection reverses all of that and seals the deal that everything He said is absolutely certain.

Iqbal says the Sign of Jonah can’t apply to Jesus since Jonah went into the fish and came out of it alive. Jesus however has said that one greater than Jonah was there. Jesus would go into the Earth dead and come out alive. The point is made stronger.

So thus far, I’m not impressed a bit, but next time we’ll see what Iqbal says Jesus said about Himself. Maybe it will be better.

But probably not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.2

Who put together the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re continuing our look at this book. Today, we’re going to look some at the men who put this together. Next time we discuss this, it will be the documents. For now, the source material is here.

“On July 22, 1604, King James of England announced that he had appointed 54 Hebrew and Greek scholars to produce a Bible, which we know today as the King James, or Authorized Version” [S16P7].

And, it was understood that if 54 scholars were not enough:

“… ALL the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment” [S2P257].

“The Kings order was carried out with utmost zeal and knowledge in an orderly manner” [S9P1] and “… because of the careful planning the whole project was completed in less than seven years” [S8P64].

Interesting, but not really relevant. However, I do want to point out that when it came to Constantine, we heard loads about his character. Why is it that when we come to what is supposed to be the perfect Bible, we hear NOTHING about the character of the man who ordered that one, good or bad? If it was relevant for Constantine, wouldn’t it be relevant here?

 

T H E M E N O F T H E K I N G J A M E S B I B L E

“Without any question there never has been a greater group of scholars gathered together at one time than the … translators of the King James Version” [S10P5].

I guess Nicea just didn’t really cut it then or any of the early church councils at all.

“The most qualified of the entire English speaking world were summoned …” [S9P1]. “They were all eminent scholars, and they all had great reverence for the Word of God, being wholly committed to its inspiration and infallibility …” [S13P7].

Okay. And? What follows from this?

“No one can study the lives of those men who gave us the King James Bible without being impressed with their profound and varied learning” [S2P258].

And?

“Scholar for scholar, the men on the King James translating committee were far greater men of God than Westcott, Hort, or any other new translator. They were not only educated in a powerful, anti-Roman atmosphere, but they looked at the manuscripts which they handled as the Holy Word of God” [S1P182].

We will see when we get to Westcott and Hort if they use any primary sources to back these claims.

“Let me show you a few of the translators of the Authorized Version. JOHN BOIS was able to read the Bible in Hebrew when five years of age! When 14 he was a proficient Greek scholar and for years he spent from 4 o’clock in the morning til eight at night in the Cambridge library studying manuscripts and languages… LANCELOT ANDREWS was the overall chairman, who was fluent in twenty languages, the greatest linguist of his day. He spent five hours a day in prayer and was so respected by the kings that orders were given, whenever Andrews was in court, there was to be no levity, no joking … JOHN CHEDDERTON, he knew Greek, Hebrew and Latin as well as you and I know English, and better” [S10P5].

Again, so what? That does not mean that their work was perfect.

 

T H E O R G A N I Z E D A P P R O A C H

“Originally 54 scholars were on the list but deaths and withdrawals reduced it finally to 47” [S8P64].

“These men were organized into six groups which were to meet separately. Two groups met at Cambridge, two at Oxford and two at Westminster. Each group was designated a certain portion of Scripture to translate into the English language” [S16P7].

“Each scholar first made his own translation, then passed it on to be reviewed by each other member of his group. When each section had completed a book of the Bible, it was sent to the other five groups for their independent criticism. In this way each book went thru the hands of the entire body of translators. To guard further against possible errors another committee was formed by selecting two from each of the three companies. Then the entire version came before this select group where all differences of opinion were ironed out. It put the finishing touches upon the work, and in 1611 prepared it for the printers” [S4P102-103].

All of the work was done in the open.

This is fascinating if true, and I’m not to say if it is or isn’t.

But none of this means the KJV is a perfect translation for all time. We know this because the translators themselves said so. See their preface here.

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where.…A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

I can’t imagine why KJV-onlyists don’t listen to this….

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.1

What about the making of the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we’re finally getting to the making of the KJV. in all that I say, I am not anti-KJV. I am anti-KJV-onlyism. The KJV is not a perfect Bible, but it’s not a horrible one either and thankfully has been used for the salvation of many. As always, the link can be found here.

“Just prior to the translation of the King James Bible, England had broken free of the yoke of Rome. Shortly after the Authorized Version was published, England once again started down the road back to Rome. For a brief ‘parenthesis’ in English history, England was free of Roman influence just long enough to translate and propagate a perfect Bible” [S1P161].

Idolatry aside, one wonders what constitutes a perfect Bible and how can you know. Did we not have a perfect Bible in the original manuscripts? Those were written in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Did God have to wait until 17th century English to get a perfect Bible?

The King James Bible “… was produced during a brief period following the overthrow of Roman authority and prior to the apostasy of the Church of England. It was translated in the era when the still young English language was at its height of purity” [S1P183].

How could you tell English was at its height of purity? English like all language changes over time. Who is it who says that it has reached the height and on what grounds?

And God foresaw the widespread use of the English language. Notice that:

“English is the language of this world. English is taught to Russian pilots, because it is universal. It is learned by Oriental businessmen, because it is universal. It was the first language spoken on the moon” [S1P40].

English is universal, but this gets us to the problem of the Koran as well. Muslims will tell you unless you read the Koran in Arabic, you do not understand it. What are we to say of Wycliffe Bible translators translating the Bible tirelessly into the languages of the people they evangelize? They just won’t understand the Bible really until they learn KJV English? Is there any purpose to even study Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic anymore?

And, God gave us the BEST English:

“The English language in 1611 was in the very best condition … Each word was broad, simple, and generic. That is to say, words were capable of containing in themselves not only their central thoughts, but also all the different shades of meaning which were attached to that central thought.

Since then, words have lost that living, pliable breadth. Vast additions have been made to the English vocabulary during the past 300 years, so that several words are now necessary to convey the same meaning which formerly was conveyed by one” [S2P246-247].

And to which I say, “Says who?” Who says this was the best. Yes. Language has changed and it has also changed because we have realities today they didn’t back then. How would you say “Smartphone” in Elizabethan English? How would you talk about the threat of nuclear war in that language?

“The English language has degenerated from what it was in 1611 to what it is today. Those claiming to put the Bible in ‘modern English’ are actually, though possibly not intentionally, trying to force the pure words of God into a degenerated vocabulary of today!” [S1P41].

I am curious what I am to think about the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the times of the Bible….

And so, “Not only was the English language by 1611 in a more opportune condition than it had ever been before or ever would again, but the Hebrew and the Greek likewise had been brought up with the accumulated treasures of their materials to a splendid working point. The age was not distracted by the rush of mechanical and industrial achievements. Moreover linguistic scholarship was at its peak. Men of giant minds, supported by excellent physical health, had possessed in a splendid state of perfection a knowledge of the languages and literature necessary for the ripest Biblical scholarship” [S2P244-245].

This is quite likely.

And today that scholarship has greatly enriched with more and more information.

And as words have changed, so we have to translate the Bible at times so people can understand it better.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 13.1

What about Tyndale? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Tyndale is the one who gave us the word “beautiful.” It’s hard to say something negative about a guy like that. He was a devout Christian, but will a KJV-only work get this right? The source material is here.

Throughout history the Roman Catholic Church has ‘stonewalled’ efforts to give God’s Holy Word to the common person.

But a man named Tyndale would champion the cause of the common man.

I don’t doubt this about Tyndale, and while I know about Wycliffe and his effort with the Bible, at the same time I wonder about the former statement. For one thing, there wasn’t much means to get the Bible into the hands of the common man since printing was costly and timely. Also, few people could read or had need to.

“The first printed English version of the Bible was that of William Tyndale, one of England’s first Protestant martyrs” [S12P214]. “The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason Tyndale translated it into English” [S2P239].

Tyndale was born: “… in the county of Gloucester near the Welsh border, about 1484” [S9P5]. “Tyndale entered Magdalen Hall at Oxford at an early age, completing his graduate work there. Further studies were done in Cambridge, which was also a center for reform. Many of the reformation martyrs were from Cambridge” [S9P5] Tyndale: “… went from Oxford to Cambridge to learn Greek under Erasmus, who was teaching there from 1510 to 1514” [S12P214].

Tyndale was: “… completely at home in eight languages, French, Hebrew, Greek, German, Spanish, Dutch, Latin and in his own tongue. He could speak any one of the seven as well as his mother tongue. He translated all of the New Testament and part of the Old, from the Greek or Hebrew, into English. His English was so perfect that the King James translators used 85% of his translation without changing a word. That was a miracle, because those scholars naturally would wish to use their own way of translating, but instead gave Tyndale’s choice of words and phrases the preference” [S10P4].

If the Tyndale was 85% word-for-word, what was the problem with the other 15%? If nothing serious, why a new Bible like the KJV? (Remember, at one time the KJV was the new Bible on the scene.)

In a dispute with a learned man, who put the Pope’s laws above God’s laws, Tyndale said: “If God spare my life, ere many years, I will cause a boy that driveth a plough to know more of the Scripture than thou …” [S2P229].

For this, Tyndale: “… was called before a council to answer charges of heresy” [S9P5].

“From that moment … his life was one of continual sacrifice and persecution” [S2P229].

“About 1520 he became attached to the doctrines of the Reformation and conceived the idea of translating the Scriptures into English” [S12P214].

To find a place to translate the Bible, Tyndale went to see Bishop Tonstall. The purpose was to:

“… ask for a place for his employ … The Bishop had no room for him. It had been decreed at the Council of Constance in 1417, that the Scriptures were NOT to be translated into the vernacular … Tyndale wrote that … there was not only no room in the Bishop’s palace to translate the Bible, but not in all of England” [S9P5].

So far I don’t really have a problem with this, but it would be good to see real historians cited or actually Tyndale himself.

Unable to translate the Bible in England, Tyndale:

“… set out for the Continent in the spring of 1524 and seems to have visited Hamburg and Wittenberg. In that same year (probably at Wittenberg) he translated the New Testament from Greek into English for dissemination in his native land. It is estimated that 18,000 copies of this version were printed on the Continent of Europe between 1525 and 1528 and shipped secretly to England. After this Tyndale continued to live on the Continent as a fugitive, constantly evading the efforts of the English authorities to have him tracked down and arrested. But in spite of this ever present danger his literary activity was remarkable. In 1530-31 he published portions of the Old Testament which he had translated from the Hebrew and in 1534 a revision both of this translation and also of his New Testament. In this same year he left his place of concealment and settled in Antwerp, evidently under the impression that the progress of the Reformation in England had made this move a safe one. In so thinking, however, he wasmistaken. Betrayed by a friend, he was imprisoned in 1535 and executed the following year. According to Foxe, his dying prayer was this: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes” [S12P214]. “Henry VIII had banned all Bibles printed in English in his realm. Eleven months after Tyndale’s death Henry gave the order to print the Bible in English …” [S10P5].

As to translating from Greek into English (vs from Latin into English) Tyndale said:

“The Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than with Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner of speaking is both one; so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate into the English, word for word: when thou must seek a compass in the Latin” [S6P86].

And where did Tyndale get the Greek text that he used for his English translation?

His text: “… came from the pure Greek text of Erasmus” [S2P222].

Could be, but at the same time, this doesn’t mean that Greek text is necessarily the best text.

As to the quality of his English translation, Tyndale said:

“I call God to record, against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus Christ to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God’s Word against my conscience, nor would to this day, if all that is in the earth-whether it be honour, pleasure, or riches-might be given me” [S6P85].

And so: “William Tyndale translated from the original Greek into English … For this he was imprisoned in 1535 for about 18 months, afterwards strangled and burnt at the stake in October, 1536” [S9P4-5]. “His great offense was that he had translated the Scriptures into English and was making copies available against the wishes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy” [S2P3].

“But his life’s work had been completed. He had laid securely the foundations of the English Bible” [S12P214].

So not much to comment on here, and that’s okay. We’ll continue next time when we get a more contrary position.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 11.2

What about Erasmus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we are back again on this today talking about this topic. So far, it has been a massive train wreck with empty assertions and one-sided argumentation. Let’s see if Johnson does any better. The source can be found here.

One person who changed the world, during the reformation, was Erasmus. Erasmus was a “… giant intellect and scholar …” [S2P225]. And, Erasmus’ name: “… was a household word all over the known world …” [S10P4].

History records that:

“Probably the most important figure in the renaissance of learning and religion was Erasmus. He traveled around Europe’s great learning centers, such as Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, Rome and others. He left his mark in history as the editor of the first published Greek New Testament printed in 1516” [S9P4].

Endowed by God: “… with a mind that could do ten hours work in one, Erasmus, during his mature years … was the intellectual giant of Europe. He was ever collecting, comparing, writing, and publishing. Europe was rocked from end to end by his books which exposed the ignorance of the monks, the superstitions of the priesthood, the bigotry, and the childish and coarse religion of the day” [S2P225].

“… Erasmus looked for manuscripts … during his travels and … he borrowed them from everyone he could” [S8P193]. “There were hundreds of manuscripts which Erasmus examined, and he did; but he used only a few” [S2P226].

With this, I don’t really disagree. Erasmus certainly was a very intellectual figure and a great mind. History does remember him and it should for good reason.

So why did Erasmus use only a few manuscripts, when he had personal access to hundreds of them? This question is answered consistently from author to author. For instance:

David Otis Fuller says: “The vast majority of manuscripts are practically all the Received Text” [S2P226].

And Barry Burton says: “The vast majority of Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down thru the centuries by true Bible-believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled, edited, and printed the Greek ‘Textus Receptus’. This is the text that the Protestants of the Reformation KNEW to be the Word of God (inerrant and infallible)” [S5P59-60].

Even ENEMIES of the Traditional Majority Text concede that: “The manuscripts Erasmus used, differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts …” [S2P227].

Erasmus examined every manuscript he could find and he found agreement among them. From the massive collection of manuscripts, Erasmus selected a sample to use. We find out that:

Erasmus’ Greek New Testament was produced from: “… nine manuscripts chosen from a very large mass” [S10P4].\

Across the board apparently means that you go and find people who are KJV-onlyists and cite them only. That sure makes a convincing case. Note that the case could be entirely right, but if you want to convince people, you need to do more than cite people who already agree with your conclusion.

So these manuscripts were in agreement; but what about their quality?

David Otis Fuller says (of Erasmus’ text):

“Moreover the text he chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, the Syrian, and the Waldensian Churches, and … it constituted an irresistible argument for and proof of God’s providence” [S2P227].

Again, one source and that being a KJV-onlyist. This is not saying that the claim is wrong. It is saying that Johnson has not made a good case for it.

So, not only did these manuscripts agree with each other, but they had an excellent history.

Now, did Erasmus’ great knowledge and detailed Godly effort result in a trouble free life? Hardly! We discover that:

“It is customary even today with those who are bitter against the pure teachings of the Received Text, to sneer at Erasmus. No perversion of the facts is too great to belittle his work” [S2P225].

It would be nice to see such a case. I am not denying that they exist, but all Johnson gives is an assertion.

Thus, the greatest mind of that day had enemies. For example, in 1521, Erasmus said:

“I did my best with the New Testament but it provoked endless quarrels. Edward Lee pretended to have found 300 errors. They appointed a commission, which professed to have found bushels of them. Every dinner-table rang with the blunders of Erasmus. I required particulars, and could not have them” [S2P226].

Could be so, but then who in church history has not had enemies?

“… I required particulars and could not have them …” I think that says it all.

We see Erasmus taking a stand for God’s Word. We see him trying to understand the comments of his detractors, in an effort to do the best possible work; yet there were never any ‘facts’ to discuss.

I am puzzled by this idea of never any facts to discuss. It looks like Erasmus was tired of having to discuss the claims. I just am left wondering what Johnson is even talking about.

The quote above gives insight into the true ‘problem’. The people who sneered at the greatest mind of their day weren’t actually against Erasmus; they were against God’s Holy Word. They were against the Traditional Majority Text.

Obviously. That had to be it. It couldn’t be they had their concerns about the text being handed down. They just didn’t want a particular text handed down. Got it.

And, although some tried to belittle his work, history is very clear about Erasmus’ personal worth and character:

“… while he lived, Europe was at his feet. Several times the King of England offered him any position in the kingdom, at his own price; the Emperor of Germany did the same. The Pope offered to make him a cardinal. This he steadfastly refused, as he would not compromise his conscience. In fact, had he been so minded, he perhaps could have made himself Pope. France and Spain sought him to be a dweller in their realm; while Holland prepared to claim him as her most distinguished citizen” [S2P225-226].

And so, Erasmus went on with his work …

Again, this could all be true, but Johnson still has the problem that he only cites people who agree with him.

“Book after book came from his hand. Faster and faster came the demands for his publications. But his crowning work was the New Testament in Greek. At last after one thousand years the New Testament was printed (1516 A.D.) in the original tongue … the world … read the pure story of the gospels. The effect was marvelous. At once, all recognized the great value of his work which for over four hundred years (1516 to 1930) was to hold the dominant place in the era of Bibles. Translation after translation has been taken from it, such as the German, and the English, and others [S2P226].

Thus: “The God who brought the New Testament text safely through the ancient and medieval manuscript period did not fumble when it came time to transfer this text to the modern printed page” [S8P196].

Finally, the ‘Dark Ages’ passed:

Nothing like creating your own terms and then shaping the data to fit that. It wasn’t the rise of the printing press and the idea of questioning Rome. Nope. It was that we finally had the precursor to the KJV!

“When the 1,000 years had gone by, strains of new gladness were heard. Gradually these grew in crescendo until the whole choir of voices broke forth as Erasmus presented his first Greek New Testament at the feet of Europe. Then followed a full century of the greatest scholars of language and literature the world ever saw” [S2P225].

Yet most of us know that while there were good things, as always, it was not just good things. There were numerous problems that followed, but Johnson won’t cover that. He’s only interested in one side of the story.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 11.1

When did the so-called Dark Ages end? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we saw Johnson continuing the myth about the Dark Ages. Nothing was said about the advancement of society in that time. All that we saw was about the fall of the Roman Empire which was somehow a bad thing even though the Roman Empire was supposedly corrupt. Anyway, the source material is here.

As you remember from the last chapter, the Papacy cut off Western Europe from Greek literature. Also, the Papacy substituted Jerome’s corrupted Bible for God’s true Bible. This brought on the ‘Dark Ages’.

I have no reason to associate that with 476 A.D. That was the year that the Roman Empire was said to have been officially defeated in the West. Don’t expect any consistency from Johnson on this end. It’s not an easy trait for people who are KJV-only to possess, which is a good reason to not be KJV-only.

For almost 1,000 years ( 476 A.D. – 1453 A.D. ), the world went through a time of spiritual darkness.

Which is only an assertion. There was much education going on in this time and for people who want to say that God’s Word will not be removed, they seem to think He abandoned His people for 1,000 years during this time. Again, consistency is not a strong point.

Also, in the last chapter we learned that: “spiritual darkness and apostasy … begin with false notions concerning faith” [S8P55] and “reformation and revival … require the correction of these errors …” [S8P55].

We learned nothing of the sort. We only saw it asserted. What would have been helpful would have been some actual quotations from the time or indications that this is what was going on. Instead, we just have someone thinking that because they are a “man of God” that what they say should be taken with full authority.

God moved in a mighty way and the ‘Dark Ages’ ended in 1453. Then, 1 year later in 1454, printing with movable type was invented.

No sources are given for this. I have seen claims that something like this was already in Asian societies in the 11th century and I see nothing saying Gutenberg finished his project in this time. Of course, the printing press was a major gift to the world and we’re all the better for it, but I would like to see Johnson verify his claims instead of just assert them.

Movable type printing, along with revival, spread God’s Word quickly.

I do not doubt that it greatly helped the Bible. If there was no printing press, it is doubtful the Reformation would have taken place then since it allowed the reprinting and publishing of the 95 theses of Martin Luther. Greater access to knowledge can be a good thing, but that also needs the character to go with it.

We pick up our study of the Bible, during this God given revival, which history has named: ‘The Reformation’.

I do support the Reformation, but at the same time it was sad that it needed to happen. However, that does not mean all was darkness before. It’s a shame Johnson leaves that out. We’ll see if he does any better as we go on, though I doubt it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 9.1

What about the Waldenses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re going back to this book by Jeff Johnson. It’s really sad that Ehrman gives me more to engage with than this guy guys, but such is the case. The source material can be found here.

Previously, we mentioned a group of people named the Waldenses (or Waldensians). We said that they made sure God’s Word was kept pure. We said this in connection with the Italic Bible of the Italian Church. In this chapter, we will examine their role in history.

As to these people we know that:

“The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the reformation, they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution …” [S2P215].

I am not sure about them having a Bible in their native tongue, but that’s not necessary to the point. They did indeed hold a lot of doctrines contrary to Rome. We could consider them precursors of Protestantism.

“The Waldenses of northern Italy were foremost among the primitive Christians of Europe in their resistance of the Papacy. They not only sustained the weight of Rome’s oppression but also they were successful in retaining the torch of truth until the reformation took it from their hands and held it aloft to the world” [S2P205].

When Constantine became Emperor and ‘called a truce’ with the Christians, his effort was only a ‘surface gesture’. Constantine was actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Beneath his sheep’s wool, he was actually trying to unite pagan Rome with the true Church and thus dilute Christian doctrine with the heretical teachings of Rome. History records that the Waldenses did not fall for this deception. For instance:

“… when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy – later the Waldenses – is seen as standing in opposition to papal Rome” [S2P207].

Unfortunately, nothing from Constantine is cited for this. This is a form of libel honestly and he would need to show that Constantine did this. If anything, paganism started breaking down a lot after Constantine.

Thus, the Waldenses remained steadfast in their faith. They could not be moved by ‘the carrot’ (i.e. a deceptive truce) nor could they be moved by ‘the stick’ (i.e. persecution).

In his book “Which Bible?”, David Otis Fuller exposes Rome’s efforts against the Waldenses:

“The agents of the Papacy have done their utmost to calumniate their [The Waldenses] character, to destroy the records of their noble past, and to leave no trace of the cruel persecution they underwent. They went even further-they made use of words written against ancient heresies to strike out the name of the heretics and fill the blank space by inserting the name of the Waldenses. Just as if, in a book, written to record the lawless deeds of some bandit like Jesse James, his name should be stricken out and the name of Abraham Lincoln substituted” [S2P205].

Fuller might have mentioned this, but Johnson doesn’t. I would like to see where this took place.

Not only was the character of the Waldenses corrupted in the documentation that has remained, but other records of the Waldenses were blatantly destroyed:

“The destruction of Waldensian records, beginning about 600 A.D. by Gregory the I, was carried through with thoroughness by the secret agents of the Papacy” [S2P206].

The Waldensians didn’t even come into being until the 13th century. It is unclear to me how their records could be destroyed before they existed.

And if this was not bad enough, the Waldenses were physically persecuted by Rome.

“History does not afford a record of cruelty greater than that manifested by Rome toward the Waldenses. It is impossible to write the inspiring history of this persecuted people, whose origin goes back to apostolic days and whose history is ornamented with stories of gripping interest. Rome has obliterated the records” [S2P206].

In his book “An Understandable History Of The Bible”, Reverend Gipp says:

“We find that Rome’s wicked persecutions of the Waldenses culminated in a devastating massacre of their number in 1655. They were hounded as ‘heretics’ until the mid 1800’s when their persistence paid off and the vile actions against them ceased” [S1P85-86].

Unfortunately, to an extent this is true. However, it’s important to note that Constantine has been replaced with the RCC as if there is a one-to-one parallel. Despite this, there is no dispute I know of about the Bible being used. What’s disagreed on is the interpretation.

We owe a lot to the Waldenses:

“To Christians such as these, preserving apostolic Christianity, the world owes gratitude for the true text of the Bible. It is not true, as Rome claims, that she gave the Bible to the world. What she gave was an impure text, a text with thousands of verses so changed as to make a way for her unscriptural doctrines” [S2P214-215].

So “Throughout the centuries, the Waldenses … had sown the seed …” [S2P224].

Thus, the name ‘Waldenses’ is forever recorded in history. For us, they passed on the pure Word of God (until the reformation would do it in mass). They withstood Rome. They held fast in their faith. And, they did this even unto death by massacre.

There is no telling how many souls were saved because of the Waldenses. Maybe yours, maybe mine. No one knows.

This chapter is dedicated to the Waldenses, and to the role they played, in history, to preserve God’s Word. Now, back to the history of our Bible.

I don’t doubt that we owe a lot to the Waldensians. I do doubt that they preserved Scripture while the RCC corrupted it. Johnson has given me no reason to think otherwise.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 7.2

Who is to blame in church history? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. You talk about church history and where things went wrong and sooner or later, we all knew it would come to this place. Yep. It’s church history’s favorite whipping boy, Constantine. As usual, the source material is here.

After Origin, “The next step in corrupting the Bible was taken in the time of Constantine.” [S7P8].

In 331 A.D. Constantine was the Emperor of Rome and he sought to: “… unite Christianity with pagan Rome” [S2P195]. He regarded himself as: “… the director and guardian of … [the] world church” [S2P195]. “Constantine, the wolf of Paganism, openly assumed the sheep’s clothing of the Christian religion” [S4P19]. “He accepted the Christian faith for political purposes and ordered a Bible that would appeal to the masses. Eusebius, a follower of Origin, was chosen for this task. This was the beginning of the Arian controversy concerning the Deity of our Lord and the spirit of ecumenism” [S7P8].

Of course, none of this actually cites Constantine himself or any quotes from the time. It’s too easy to beat up on Constantine. I recommend listening to my interview with Peter Leithart on his book Defending Constantine.

At this point, let’s pause for some clarification and definition:

A) The Arian controversy is the belief that Jesus Christ was a created being. i.e. that Jesus is: “the eldest and highest of creatures, rather than God manifest in the flesh” [S3P535]. The ramification is that Christ is fallen, is less than God, and is not equal to God. This is heresy.

I don’t think it entails Christ is fallen if it means Christ is a sinful creature, but yes, we all agree that Arianism is heresy.

B) Ecumenism is the belief in a one world church where I’m OK, your OK, we’re all OK. The ramification here is that no one is a sinner. Therefore, we do not need to be saved. This is NOT scriptural. This is a big lie. ( Note: Ecumenism is happening today)

This is one definition of it and one that I don’t think most people would speak of by it. When I consider myself ecumenical, it means I can worship freely at any church that holds to orthodox Christian doctrine. It also includes in my eyes Catholics and Orthodox.

The truth is: “The Bible God wrote through holy men, does not teach ecumenicalism, i.e. that all religious systems should be united into one world-wide fellowship. Instead the Word of God teaches fellowship-separation between true believers and false professors” [S4P113].

Okay…..

Now, back to the history of the Bible. Eusebius has just been chosen by the so called ‘Christian’ Emperor Constantine to produce a corrupted Bible ‘for the masses’. From historical records we know that:

Oh yes. Constantine definitely asked Eusebius to corrupt the Bible and Eusebius definitely did that. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

“Eusebius was a great admirer of Origen and a student of his philosophy. He had just edited the fifth column of the ‘Hexapla’ which was Origin’s Bible. Constantine chose this, and asked Eusebius to prepare 50 copies for him … The Emperor Constantine gave orders that … this edition should be used in the Churches” [S4P18-19].

Odd that Origen’s name is spelled differently in this paragraph. The Hexapla was not so much a Bible as it was a project to deal with textual variants. Left out is that Bibles were printed because Diocletian had destroyed so many in his persecution before.

“Together Constantine and Eusebius called for religious toleration, which is invariably followed by amalgamation. To placate both Christian and heathen, they took a ‘middle of the road position’ regarding the deity of Christ. Consequently … the doctrine that Jesus was ‘the eldest and highest of creatures’, rather than ‘God manifest in the flesh’, was adopted …” [S3P535]. And: “… the amalgamation of heathen and Christian doctrine – smoothing out differences thereby allowing for unity – was perfect for Constantine’s purposes” [S3P535].

The religious toleration was for Christians. The Edict of Milan made Christianity a legal religion. True, Constantine wanted Arius back in the church.

Thus, Eusebius carried on Origin’s work in corrupting the scriptures. And, as it turns out:

“Many of the important variations in the modern versions may be traced to the influence of Eusebius and Origin …” [S2P3].

Variations such as?……

Looking back at this point in history, G.A Riplinger makes an interesting observation. In her book “New Age Bible Versions” she says:

“Corrupt bibles, with their loose doctrine, seem to create loose living in A.D. 333 and in the 1990’s” [S3P536].

That’s something to think about.

Except there has not been any demonstration of loose living by Christians at the time. If anything, a few decades after Constantine Julian the Apostate emperor would say that Christians took care of not just their own, but also of the pagans. Instead, we have an assertion from someone who doesn’t study history and making slanderous remarks about those who came before them. These are the people who are KJV-only.

That’s something to think about.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Response To Spiritual Deception in the Highest question 1

Is the KJV the only Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I recently was shown some work from a guy named Robert Breaker who is a KJV-onlyist. He recommended a book that can be found on his web site called “Spiritual Deception in the Highest.” After all, the obvious work of spiritual deception is to get people away from the KJV. (We all know eschatologically the biggest disaster to the devil came in 1611 when for the first time there was actually a Bible.) So if you want to see this work, then you can see it here.

I realize there aren’t as many KJV-onlyists today as there used to be most likely, but they are still out there and either way, this is dealing with issues that many people will still struggle with. I do definitely plan to get back to Life Is A Game, but I figured I could use my skills here to deal with this. Thus, time to look at this work and see the charges that are made.

Bible Question #1: Who was it that saved Shadrach, Messach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace. However, they are NOT alone! Another one (a fourth) is there to deliver them !

Let’s start off by looking at this verse in a ‘modern version’. (Notice: the wording in each ‘modern version’ will differ slightly from all the others. But, those small differences, will not materially affect this report).

Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, a ‘modern’ version has a reading “similar to” the following:

“… and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods …”

“a” son of the ( plural ) gods?! Who is that? What is His name ? Notice how that reading is very vague and “non-descript”.

But, look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJ) Bible says:

“… and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God“. i.e. Jesus Christ.

It was JESUS CHRIST, THE only begotten Son of God, who delivered Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus saved them from the fiery furnace; and it’s Jesus who will save you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. from hell, from the lake of fire ).

The Bible is clear: There is ONLY ONE SAVIOUR: The LORD Jesus Christ, THE Son (capital S) of God (big G). Jesus is the ONLY one who saves from the fiery furnace, NOT “a” son of the (plural) gods (little g). Jesus saved in the past, He does it today, and He will save in the future ! Amen ?

So let’s put this in some context.

The Hebrew word listed here is Ela and is 424 in Strong’s. Now going to BlueLetterBible, let’s see where else this shows up in Daniel.

2:11 And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.

2:18 That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.

2:19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

2:23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter.

2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

3:14

Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?

 

3:15 Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?

3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.

3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.

I have only covered chapters 2 and 3 here as these terms also show up in 5 and 6 and then stop, though surely it is not because God is not mentioned. It’s interesting that this term only shows up when it is interacting in a pagan environment. Both the Hebrews like Daniel and his friends and the pagans like Nebuchadnezzar use this term. When the Jews use it, it more refers to their God in the singular and when the pagans use it, it refers to the gods in the plural. Sometimes King Nebuchadnezzar will use it to refer to the God of Israel, but only when directly speaking to a Jewish person.

So what is more likely here?

When Nebuchadnezzar is speaking to his fellow pagans, he is not likely to say the Son of God. He is more likely to say a son of the gods, which is the way a pagan would understand matters. Now does this diminish Jesus? Not at all. Assuming that Jesus is the fourth man in the fire, which I have no problem with, this is still painting Jesus as a divine being and a Jewish reader would think that the divine being was a son of God in some sense.

It might be easy for Johnson, the author of the work in question, to paint to a conspiracy, but it’s far more level-headed to just look at the text. The pattern is consistent and rather than seek to impugn someone else, it’s better to just understand why they translate the text a certain way. It might not be as easy, but it is more fitting in Christian character.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)