Tag: Jeff Johnson

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 10.1

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

Jeff Johnson keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Today, we’re going to be talking about the Dark Ages. Never mind that this is a name that comes from much more secular thinkers and is supposed to be in contrast to the enlightenment, Johnson goes with it. The source material can be found here.

Beginning around 476 A.D., the world entered ‘The Dark Ages’. This lasted almost 1,000 years.

Now consider me confused here. The year is chosen because this is seen as when the Roman Empire fell, yet this is supposedly the empire of Constantine that Johnson has been condemning. So why is it that this is the Dark Ages in Johnson’s view? Wouldn’t the fall of a wicked empire be a good thing?

In this short chapter, we will explore the cause of ‘Dark Ages’.

When we last left the history of the Bible, the Catholic Church hired Jerome to make a corrupted Latin Bible. The purpose was to go up against the true Latin Bible ( the Italic Bible ) of the early Italian Church.

I know we live in a society where conspiracy theories are often becoming true, but this one we have been waiting for for well over 1,500 years now….

Jerome completed his corruption in 380 A.D., and the Catholic Church adopted Jerome’s corrupted Bible as their standard. In addition to Jerome’s Latin Bible, the Papacy adopted another measure to: “… keep Europe under its domination” [S2P216]. We find out that

“… the Papacy was against the flow of Greek language and literature to Western Europe. All the treasures of the classical past were held back in the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. For nearly one thousand years, the western part of Europe was a stranger to the Greek tongue” [S2P216]. “The West became exclusively Latin, as well as estranged from the East; with local exceptions … the use and knowledge of the Greek language died out in Western Europe” [S2P216].

It is assumed that this happened due to evil intent. Why should we think that? It’s my understanding that the Crusades helped to recover this, but if this knowledge was so horrible, why was it accepted when it returned? Aquinas is even the main theologian of the RCC and he was thoroughly Aristotelian.

“When the use and knowledge of Greek died out in Western Europe, all the valuable Greek records, history, archaeology, literature, and science remained untranslated and unavailable to Western energies. No wonder, then, that this opposition to using the achievements of the past brought on the Dark Ages (476 A.D. to 1453 A.D.)” [S2P216].

The people of this time did not avoid the past. They were constantly doing scientific experiments and making advancements. This was actually a time of great education.

Thus, the people were denied access to valuable Greek records. And they were fed Jerome’s corrupted Bible.

So, during this 1,000 year timeframe, the sun came up every day, just like it had since creation. The Dark Ages DID NOT refer to a ‘celestial problem’. No, the Dark Ages referred to a ‘spiritual problem’.

Okay. So when the evil Roman Empire fell, we had a spiritual problem? I thought Constantine was the problem. Now we’re told when his empire is removed, that is the problem. I suppose the problem is I expect Johnson to be consistent.

The Church needs to learn a lesson from the ‘Dark Ages’. Edward F. Hills tells us the bottom line:

“From the study of the Bible and Church history two conclusions may be safely drawn. First, spiritual darkness and apostasy ALWAYS begin with false notions concerning faith. Second, reformation and revival ALWAYS REQUIRE the correction of these errors …” [S8P55].

I don’t doubt that there were false notions, but I do doubt that this was because Jerome’s Bible was corrupt. Was it a perfect translation? No. None is, but that is far from saying it was a heretical one.

At any rate, it would serve Johnson well to actually read real material about the Dark Ages instead of just the people who agree with him.

We will continue next time.

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 8.1

How far does supposed biblical corruption go? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we say church history’s favorite whipping boy of Constantine whipped out. As we move on now, once again, Johnson lands on a new villain. Everyone has been involved in this diabolical plot and of course, this time the Pope is involved. We’ll be citing the source material from here.

After Origin, Constantine, and Eusebius:

The “… corruption of God’s Word was taken over by Jerome who was called upon by the Pope to prepare a Bible that would favor the Roman Catholic teaching” [S7P8]. “Jerome was furnished with all the funds that he needed and was assisted by many scribes and copyists” [S2P217].

I highly question this seeing Johnson doesn’t even realize that Origen believed that Jesus lived physically on Earth. However, one could accept this and still say Jerome strived to copy the text faithfully. So far, as far as I have seen, Johnson’s only sources are other KJV-onlyists, hardly convincing to those on the outside.

“Jerome in his early years had been brought up with an enmity to the Received text, then universally known as the Greek Vulgate … The hostility of Jerome to the Received Text made him necessary to the Papacy” [S2P219].

Color me skeptical that the Papacy this early was opposed to one version of the Bible. We have none of Jerome’s actual words cited, which considering he wrote a lot, would be easy enough. All we are getting is at best thirdhand information.

“Jerome was devotedly committed to the textural criticism of Origin, an admirer of Origen’s critical principles …” [S2P218]. To corrupt the Bible, Jerome went to “… the famous library of Eusebius … where the voluminous manuscripts of Origin had been preserved” [S2P218].

It would be nice to know what is missing in these ellipses. However, since Origen did the most work before this in the area of textual criticism, it’s not a shock if Jerome would want to utilize that. It would actually be foolish if he didn’t.

As to the manuscripts of Origin and Eusebius, we know that: “it was from this type of manuscript that Jerome translated …” [S2P195]. And we also know that Jerome’s translation “… became the authorized Catholic Bible for all time” [S2P195].

Which shouldn’t be a surprise if true. Again, Origen had done the most work on this at the time. Wouldn’t that make him a proper source to go to?

“… It was through Jerome that … Apocryphal books were placed in the Bible. These were soon accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as authoritative” [S7P8]. “Jerome admitted that these … DID NOT belong with the other writings of the Bible. Nevertheless, the Papacy endorsed them …” [S2P218].

And boys and girls, time to recognize the irony. Which books were included in the original 1611? Ding ding ding! That’s right! The Apocrypha!

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

“The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.”

https://1611bible.online/Apocrypha/

So obviously, the original KJV was in the service of Rome. Right?

Note at this it is not my goal to address whether the Apocrypha belong in the text or not. The point is the hypocrisy of it all. If the translation of Jerome is to be called into question for it, then so should the 1611 KJV be called into question.

In his book “An Understandable History Of The Bible” Reverend Gipp tells us that:

“Rome enlisted the help of a loyal subject by the name of Jerome. He quickly translated the corrupt Local Text into Latin. This version included the Apocryphal books … which no Bible believing Christian accepts as authentic” [S1P82].

This is quite a claim since I know a number of Christians who do accept, however, if this is the case, then the original translators of the KJV were not Bible-believing Christians. Why is Johnson defending a Bible that was not translated by Bible-believing Christians? Wouldn’t they be in the service of Satan?

“The Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published in about 380 A.D. It was rejected by real Christians until approximately 1280 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name ‘Vulgate’ … for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people … It would seem that such deception lacks a little in Christian ethics, if not honesty” [S1P68].

It’s amazing how much Gipp thinks he knows about real Christians back then. Also, what happened in 1280 that real Christians could accept it? How did the text change?

But: “The name ‘Vulgate’ on the flyleaf of Jerome’s unreliable translation did little to help sales. The Old Latin Bible, or ‘Italic’ as it is sometimes called, was held fast by all true Christians …” [S1P83]. Thus: “The common people recognized the true Word of God because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it” [S1P82].

So does this mean the Holy Spirit would not bear witness to the original 1611 KJV? After all, it had the Apocrypha. Why not include it in the Satanic plot?

So: “… the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles … The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to … Rome” [S1P84]. “True Protestants have always rejected … Roman Catholicism and maintained the very opposite” [S12P103].

One can reject Roman Catholicism without thinking all Catholics are outside of Christianity. There are Protestants who think that they are. I’m not one of them.

This ‘Old Latin’ Bible was:

“… universally accepted by faithful Christians …” [S1P68] and that “… it was responsible for keeping the Roman Catholic Church contained to southern Italy for years. It was not until the Roman Catholic Church successfully eliminated this Book through persecutions, torture, Bible burnings, and murder that it could capture Europe in its web of superstitious paganism” [S1P68].

Again, no sources are cited. Gipp is Samuel C. Gipp who has been on Ankerberg’s show defending the KJV. I find this even worse though since this is someone from a time where more and more of this information is easily accessible and if so, then that means Johnson is from this time as well and yet has chosen to not access this information.

Reverend Gipp says:

“Perhaps we should learn a lesson. Where the … King James Bible reigns, God blesses …. Oh, that America could but look at what has happened to England … Yes, the sun began to set on the British Empire in 1904, when the British Foreign Bible Society changed from the pure Textus Receptus …” [S1P69].

Also, not long after the Apocrypha was removed from the KJV. Maybe that’s why God removed His blessing. At best, we have simply a post hoc fallacy here.

Thus, Satan used Jerome and the Catholic Church to substitute his counterfeit Latin Bible. But, this corruption “… which we will now call Jerome’s translation – did not gain immediate acceptance everywhere. It took nine hundred years to bring that about. Purer Latin Bibles than Jerome’s had already a deep place in the affections in the West. Yet steadily through the years, the Catholic Church has uniformly rejected the Received Text wherever translated from the Greek into Latin and exalted Jerome’s …” [S2P220].

And again, all we have is an assertion.

T W O B I B L E S T R E A M S

In the history of the Bible, we see the development of two ‘streams’ of Bibles: God’s true Word and Satan’s counterfeit. This started in the Garden of Eden and continues today. In fact, every Bible both old and ‘new’, and every Bible in every language, falls into one of these two categories.

We also see that some people are (knowingly or unknowingly) propagating the corruption and some are passing on the original.

In the next chapter we will break from our historical study and look at the personal side of the struggle for God’s Word. We will look at a group of people, within the ‘true Church’, called the Waldenses.

The Waldenses, of the Italian Church, are trying to pass on God’s original Bible.

Their’s is an interesting story. Let’s review the role they played in history.

And so we shall, next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 7.1

What was the devil’s plan to corrupt Scripture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I hear people, especially pastors, talk about how God gave them a sermon or God led them to do something or what God was doing in Heaven that is not revealed in Scripture, I inwardly cringe. What makes these people think they have insight into what’s going on in the Heavens like this? I do the same when people talk about the devil this way too. So let’s continue with KJV-only craziness that can be found here.

To attack God’s true Word, Satan had to come up with a corruption. The history goes as follows:

Yes. That obviously was the way. It couldn’t be that you can just attack doctrine like Porphyry did in early church history.

Around the year 200 A.D. a man named Clement:

“… founded the ‘Catechetical School’ at Alexandria. He brought the wisdom of the world into the teachings of the Christian faith and began to collect a group of corrupt manuscripts” [S7P8]. “Clement expressly tells us that he would not hand down Christian teachings, pure and unmixed, but rather clothed with precepts of pagan philosophy” [S2P191].

Unfortunately, we are not told where Clement said this. I can find two possible places in his work, The Instructor, and both of them put such an idea in a light that is quite sensible and what we use today. First, there is chapter 12 of book 1. Also, there is chapter 4 of book 5, which I consider more likely.

Clement compares what He is doing to Christ speaking in parables to express hidden truths. C.S. Lewis would refer to the idea as sneaking past watchful dragons. The idea was a way to sneak truth into the minds of those who would reject it or to explain to people the truth of Scripture using concepts they already understand.

These ‘historically early’ changes to God’s Word were also verified by Colwell who found that: “… as early as A.D. 200 scribes were altering manuscripts, changing them from a Majority-type text to a minority type” [S3P484] ).

These changes to the Word of God took place at Alexandria, Egypt.

This could be so, but Johnson needs to give us a reason beyond “Colwell says so.” He needs to provide the evidence. Now if Colwell is who I think it is, then he is a scholar indeed, but we still want his reasons.

READER NOTE: “… it was Antioch that the Holy Spirit chose for the base of Christian operations” [S1P51]. Thus, Antioch was good.

Jerusalem was the place where God’s name would dwell, thus Jerusalem is good. Also, in Jerusalem….

But, we must remember that Egypt was bad. In the Word, God says Egypt is: “… the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Egypt is: “… the iron furnace” (Deuteronomy 4:20).

Nineveh was also bad, and yet God sought to redeem it.

It was the Egyptians whom Abraham thought would kill him after seeing he had a beautiful wife (Genesis 12:2). It was in Egypt that Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:36). It was in Egypt that Israel had taskmasters set over them to afflict them with burdens (Exodus 1:11). It was about Egypt that God said to Israel: “Ye shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16). And, it was in Jeremiah 46:25 that God promises to bring punishment onto Egypt.

Thus, Egypt is a type of this world, it is evil. And, as for Alexandria, Egypt; it was a: “… pagan city known for its education and philosophy …” [S1P51].

I wonder why Johnson doesn’t go into detail on the history of the people of Israel following this kind of logic….

Now, back to the story:

“… The best known graduate of this Alexandrian School was Origen who followed Clement as the head of the school. He became the most influential leader of his generation. He edited a six column Bible called the ‘Hexapla’. Each of the columns had a different version of the Bible. He continually changed Bible verses that did not agree with his liberal ideas. He spiritualized God’s Word. He believed Christ to be a created being just as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach today” [S7P8].

I was having no problem with this until I got to the part about changing verses immediately and saying Christ was a created being. He would need to show where this was. This is not to say that Origen did not hold some crazy ideas. There is a lot of truth that he did spiritualize and allegorize a lot, but I have no basis for thinking his Christology was Arian.

Also:

“Origin did not believe that Jesus lived physically on earth!” [S5P65]. We know: “Origin was the first person to teach purgatory” [S1P75] and that Origin was quoted to say: “The laws of men appear more excellent and reasonable than the laws of God” [S3P527]. And, we also know that: “Origin was baptized as an infant, and he gave no indication that he was spiritually saved” [S4P112].

The first part is nonsense. The second part I would need to see evidence of. For the third, I want to see where this is, but note that he says “appear.” That could well be describing what a non-Christian audience would think, and today even that is true. As for the last, the guy spent his entire life in service of God. What does he mean by no indication?

In her book “New Age Bible Versions” [S3P529] G.A. Riplinger tells us the church rejected Origin because of his heretical beliefs. For example, Origin believed (against scripture) that:

Excuse gag reflex at the mention of Riplinger. Also, the guy’s name is “Origen” and not “Origin.”

1) The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.

Origen did believe in preexistence, but he needs to show where the idea of Jesus taking on such a soul exists.

2) There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.

I consider both of these ideas nonsense. Show where Origen taught this.

3) Hell is non existent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.

Again. Show it.

4) All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.

Yes. He did teach this.

5) The sun, moon, and stars are living creatures.

Show it.

6) Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for, for males.

The idea he did this is doubtful. The second needs to be shown.

Origin was also the author of the ‘Septuagint’. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Remember, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text which Jesus quoted when he walked the earth. And, it was the Massoretic Old Testament Text that has been verified.

The Septuagint was around at the time of Jesus……

Yet, some ‘modern textual critics’ use the Greek Septuagint to determine the wording of ‘new versions’. Instead of using the proven Hebrew Massoretic Old Testament Text, some translators admitted they used Origin’s Septuagint. For instance; the NIV translators said they used the Old Testament Text that was: “standardized early in the third century by Origin” [S3P537].

Thus, we see that Origin was a key participant in the corruption of God’s Word.

“It is clear that Origin is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology” [S7P8]. “Origin, though once exalted by modern day Christianity as a trustworthy authority, has since been found to have been a heretic who interpreted the Bible in the light of Greek philosophy …”

No. What is clear is that Johnson doesn’t know a thing about Origen or church history. There is no reason to take him seriously on anything.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest — 6.1

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

We’re going forward in the next step in Bible translation. It’s not a shock that Johnson punts to the devil here to make his case. As always, the original can be found here.

At the same time as the Syrian translation, but in another part of the world; the common language of Italy, France, and Great Britain was not Syrian, but Latin. Thus, for these countries, a Bible was needed in Latin. Therefore, the original Greek Vulgate (The Traditional Majority Text) was translated from Greek into Latin. This is believed to have occurred no later than 157 A.D.

“One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy …” [S4P98]. The Waldenses were: “lineal descendents of the Italic Church” [S4P98-99]. More will be said of the Waldenses later on, but as for the Italic Church suffice it to say that:

This part is a bit confusing. Is he saying one of these Bibles was the first for a group that came about 1,000 years later? It sounds odd really to make a case like that.

“Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity” [S4P98].

The only thing I can find about Allix other than Wiki sources is here. All we have here though is an assertion. No manuscript evidence is given of this. If Allix is also part of the Italic Church it wouldn’t be much of a shock to hear this said.

Augustine, speaking of the Latin Bibles, said: “Now among translations themselves the Italian (Old Itala) is to be preferred to others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression” [S2P208].

I did a search for this quote and I cannot find it which is problematic. Without finding it, it’s hard to know if it is a real quote or not. If it is, I have no idea what the context is.

Dr. Nolan, who acquired fame for his Greek and Latin scholarship, traced the history of the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to the Waldenses of the Italic Church. He says the Traditional Majority Text was:

“… adopted into the version that prevailed in the Latin Church” [S4P99].

This means:

“… the basis for the King James Bible has been proven to be in harmony with translations which go back to the second century” [S4P99].

Once again, the problem is that I cannot find who Dr. Nolan is exactly. I tried looking for the quotes, but to no avail. Either way, most of us would have no problem saying the KJV was in line with early manuscripts. No one is arguing that the KJV is a bad translation, but that does not mean it is perfect or even the best.

This statement about the Italic Bible of 157 A.D., along with the statement about the Syrian Peshitta Bible of 150 A.D., both date the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ with the earliest Church manuscripts.

For terminology sake we will call this Latin Bible the ‘Old Latin’. And, as history shows, it’s this ‘Old Latin’ Bible which agrees with the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ used in the King James Bible.

This Old Latin Bible saw widespread use. In his book: “An Understandable History of the Bible”, Reverend Gipp says:

“The true gospel was fast spreading all over Europe due to the Old Latin translation …” [S1P82].

He goes on to say that:

“The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches … throughout Europe. This Latin version became so used and beloved by orthodox Christians and was in such common use by the common people that it assumed the term ‘Vulgate’ as a name. Vulgate … which is Latin for common” [S1P67].

Even if we grant all of this, so what? None of this argues that the text of the KJV is perfect in every way.

 

S A T A N  I S  N O T  F A R  B E H I N D

In the Garden of Eden, after God spoke with Adam, Satan came by to offer his own translation!

It seems to follow; that whenever God makes His original, it’s not long before Satan comes by with a counterfeit.

Satan will offer a counterfeit to God’s original Greek Bible as well as a counterfeit to God’s original ‘Old Latin’ Bible, and on and on.

Which ultimately begs the question. Johnson has provided no evidence of the devil corrupting texts and it seems odd that KJV-onlyists keep insisting God can keep His word pure, but apparently, it can also be easily corrupted.

As David Fuller points out in his book “Which Bible?”: “From the beginning there has been no pause in the assault on God’s Son and God’s Word” [S2P4].

Well since from the beginning, it wasn’t known that there was a second person of the Trinity or that God was even triune nor was there written texts of Scripture then….

The following quote, referring to Christ’s victory at Calvary, summarizes Satan’s actions against God’s Bible:

“Vanquished by The Word Incarnate, Satan next directed his subtle malice against The Word written” [S2P96].

The devil must have been awfully bored until 1611 to have no pure and perfect word to go after. Not only that, I find capitalizing word in the second sentence to be problematic. This puts Jesus and the Bible on an equal level.

We will continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 5.1

What’s the next step in getting our Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So now we’re moving on with Spiritual Deception in the Highest into the history of the text. Of course, no scholars of textual criticism have been cited. If you were a scholar in the field, this would be somewhat understandable, but Johnson is not. As always, the source material can be found here.

After the Apostle John died, the Church used its collection of New Testament manuscripts. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these separate manuscripts were brought together into codex (book) form.

Could be, but no sources are cited. Now could one of the Early Church Fathers said this? Sure. Is this plausible? Yes. Still, my problem is that Johnson just gives assertions.

In the very early years of the Church, the Traditional Majority Text (i.e. the Bible) was called the Greek Vulgate; Greek because it was written in Greek and Vulgate because Vulgate means:

“… that which is popular; the usual or best known, and most used by the majority of the people” [S4P97].

Again, this could be the case, but Johnson gives me no reason to believe it and since I have already seen his research isn’t good on what I have studied in-depth and even things I can check in just a couple of minutes. Now it could be that the S 4 refers to the fourth book in his footnotes, but is this a scholarly source who has studied the history of textual transmission? I have no reason to think so.

Then around 150 A.D. the Greek Vulgate (the Traditional Majority Text) was translated into Syrian. This Bible, for the Syrian Church, was named the ‘Peshitta Bible’. Syriac scholars state that the Peshitta Bible was:

“… careful, faithful, simple, direct, literal version, clear and forceful in style” [S4P97].

Again, this is entirely plausible, but it would be nice to know who these scholars are. The source could say something, but I still question Johnson’s sources.

In his book: “Believing Bible Study”, Edward F. Hills compares the Syrian Peshitta Bible to the Traditional Majority Greek Text:

“The Peshitta Syriac version agrees closely with the Traditional text found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts …” and he says: “… the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text” [S8P94].

No problem here really. Biblical transmission has been very accurately done.

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason (i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a ‘new’ (i.e. corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date back to the early manuscripts. The quote above shows the ‘Traditional Majority Text’, i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

And that translation was done at an early time, yes, but that does not mean that the manuscripts were the best. Keep in mind that we have found new manuscripts since then and especially with the Old Testament, we have found the Dead Sea Scrolls. I am fine with the idea that Westcott and Hort said this, but I would also like to know why they thought what they thought, but Johnson doesn’t want to give us the argument.

It used to be that: “… some scholars of the nineteenth century believed that the ‘Majority Text’ was a fourth century recension and did not represent the earliest manuscripts … This [theory] has been abandoned by most present day scholars” [S3P480].

And who are the present day scholars? When is the present day?

Isn’t it appropriate that the Traditional Majority Text can be traced back to the early Church in Syria. I say this because it was in Syria, specifically at Antioch the capital of Syria, where believers were first called ‘Christians’! ( Acts 11:26 ).

Why this would indicate this text is the best? Your guess is as good as mine.

We will continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.3

How did we get the New Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So today, we’re going to see what Jeff Johnson has to say about the New Testament. Of course, we expect no scholars of textual criticism to be cited here. If you want the source material, you can go here.

“The books which make up the Bible were written over a period of 1700 years from 1650 B.C. to 90 A.D. by men who were directly inspired by God” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments).

As to the New Testament:

“The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament” [S4P94].

The information about John is possible. We don’t really know how or when a lot of the apostles died. Sean McDowell’s book is the go-to on this one. Also, I don’t know of any evidence we have that John gathered these writings.

“John the Apostle was said to be about the only writer of the New Testament who did not die a violent death as a martyr. Then, following the completion of the New Testament, most of the men who translated the Bible manuscripts into the language of the common people were put to death. History reveals the surprising fact that it was members of the clergy, those supposed to be ministers of Christ, who directed and carried out the cruel deeds of martyrdom” [S4P96].

Again, it would have been nice to have some sources for what history reveals. The problem here with Johnson is not so much the passing on of these ideas, but that he accepts them uncritically, just like many of us, myself in the past included, do so with the deaths of the apostles. We should always check into our claims to the best of our ability.

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

This number on agreement could be right as far as percentages go, though I wonder how you get a 100% text from a 95% set of documents. The number of manuscripts could be accurate depending on when this was written, but that date is not known.

Later, we will discuss the 5-10% of the manuscripts and why they are different.

And we hope some textual scholars will be cited, but we are not holding our breath.

Because the King James New Testament agrees with the majority of these 5,000 manuscripts, it is called the ‘Majority Text’. It has also been referred to as the ‘Traditional Text’ and it is also called ‘The Textus Receptus’.

The New Testament of the KJV got its name ‘Textus Receptus’ because; in 1624 the Elzevir brothers printed, in the preface of their 1624 edition of the Greek New Testament, the following words (translated into English):

“Therefore thou hastthe text (textum) now received (receptum) by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupt. From Textum Receptum came the words we now use as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text” [S4P96].

So the King James Bible is called the ‘Majority Text’, the ‘Traditional Text’, the ‘Textus Receptus’ and the ‘Received Text’. All of these names refer to the SAME Greek New Testament Text. All of these names refer to the King James Bible.

Nothing really problematic here.

For this report I will be use the term ‘Traditional Majority Text’ to describe the text which underlies the King James Bible.

And, I will use the term ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ to describe the substitute text used in ‘modern’ versions.

Nothing like poisoning the well for an argument.

Now, let’s trace the history of both the ‘Traditional Majority Text’ and the ‘Corrupted Minority Text’ and their translations into various languages.

And I am sure it will be full of scholarly and accurate information!

We’ll continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.2

How did we get the Old Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We saw yesterday a statement that I could not describe as anything less than blasphemous. Today, Johnson is going to tell us some about textual transmission. (Perhaps if you wanted to write about Bible translation this would have been a better place to start.) The link can be found here.

“The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

“The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts” [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

“The original Hebrew manuscripts were not ‘pointed’, that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text” [S15P7].

Okay. Nothing really objectionable so far.

This oral tradition continued until:

“… a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds” [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the ‘written tradition’.

The Masoretes did a valuable service, but we should not ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Those were people trying to be faithful to the text as well.

In Alfred Levell’s book “The Old Is Better”; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

“For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ … After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies” [S13P17].

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

“… many complicated safeguards … such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book” [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

“The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the ‘Oracles of God’. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung … In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther – the whole was rejected” [S2P112-113]

Fuller is at least a scholar, but he wrote this book back in 1970 and we have learned more sense then. He is also another KJV-onlyist. Still, there is really nothing wrong with this statement.

In his book “God Wrote Only One Bible”, Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

“In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing ‘Jehovah’ lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original” [S4P94-95].

I can find nothing on Ray, but once again, Johnson is only echoing his own side. He has thus far not studied anyone on something as simple as textual transmission except those who agree with him.

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

“… the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text” [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

“… many secondary witnesses … including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts” [S18P153].

Again, still no problem.

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

“The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God … The Old Testament was our Lord’s only study book …. Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New” [S2P113-114].

In the booklet “God’s Inspired Preserved Bible” the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

“As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ’s words were taken directly from the Old Testament” [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

I have no problem with using the Masoretic text, but I have no desire to throw out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We shall continue next time with the New Testament.

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