Tag: King James Version

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 21.1

So what about Westcott and Hort? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay, folks. I put this one off for a bit because I had tried to find the Westcott and Hort quotations, but I had no luck. Unfortunately, Johnson never gives primary sources and I don’t trust the sources he has, particularly Riplinger. If there is a reader out there who can provide more context, I welcome that. For now, the main source material can be found here.

In the last chapter, we learned ‘Codex Vaticanus’ and ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ are two manuscripts from the corrupted minority of Greek texts.

No. We saw that asserted.

‘Vaticanus’ was found in the Vatican library. ‘Sinaiticus’ was found in a Mt. Sinai trash can.

And the scroll of the law was found while cleaning the temple. Apparently, it had been abandoned. I suppose Johnson would have scrapped it then. Right?

We also know these 2 manuscripts form the basis for the Westcott and Hort Greek text. And, the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text forms the basis for ‘modern’ versions of the Bible.

In this chapter Westcott and Hort use the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts to make their ‘own’ Greek text. This they submit to a Bible translation committee. The result will be the “English Revised Version of 1881”. Later on, other ‘modern versions’ will follow the W&H text.

We pick up the history of the Bible, in England, in 1870.

Okay. Let’s go.

“In 1870, the Convention of the Church of England commissioned a revision of the Authorized Version” [S1P162].

A revision committee was assembled.

It’s too bad Johnson never stops to ask why. Did the Church of England abandon a belief in the perfection of the KJV, or did they just never have it to begin with?

The Revision Committee was instructed: “… NOT to deal with the underlying Greek text of the Authorized Version. They were instructed to do as follows: (1) to introduce AS FEW alterations as possible into the text of the King James Bible, and (2) to limit … the expression of any alterations TO THE LANGUAGE of the Authorized Version” [S1P163].

“Westcott and Hort had other plans. They had edited the corrupt Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts … and produced their own Greek text. Wisely they had never published it” [S1P163].

Why wisely? Was it found to be better or worse? Johnson has never made a convincing case for worse.

“Westcott and Hort had been working together on their text since 1853; in 1870 they printed a tentative edition for private distribution only. This they circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of New Testament revisers, of which they were members (of which came the Revised Version of 1881). It soon became evident that the New Testament committee was NOT going to be content merely to revise the Authorized Version, but was determined to revise the UNDERLYING Greek text radically” [S2P153-154].

All of this would need to be shown. We have the text that was used. We can see how well they did.

In November of 1870, Westcott said: “In a few minutes I go with Lightfoot to Westminster. More will come of these meetings, I think, than simply a revised version” [S1P162-163].

Gotta love the assumption that there’s some devious plan by Westcott in this.

Hort to Westcott: “This may sound like cowardice-I have a craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion” [S3P407-408]

Westcott to Hort: “… strike blindly … much evil would result from a public discussion” [S3P408].

Unfortunately, we are not told the context. Is there evil intent here? Johnson wants us to believe so, but he does not give us the context and what this is about. He never once considers going to the writings of Westcott and Hort and showing where they are in them, which is just not good research.

But considering his record so far, color me skeptical.

We’ll continue next time.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.3

How do we wrap up the wording of the KJV section? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Again, I am leaving a lot of stuff out that is tedious as it is just doing things like counting the number of syllables. This chapter ends with some odds and ends and we’re going to go ahead and get to those. As always, the source material can be found here.

Not only does the King James use simpler words, but it also uses a shorter vocabulary of ‘different’ words. In his book “The Majority Text”, Theodore Letis points out:

“The AV contains only about six thousand words as compared to Shakespeare’s fifteen to twenty thousand and Milton’s thirteen thousand …”

Okay. And? Even if I grant this as true, what follows from this? What is asked is not how many different words are used but how easy those words are to understand. There are times fewer words are better and there are times more words are better. It depends on the situation. For instance, we don’t want to have endless vocabulary lists to learn to say something, but meanwhile, Greek has four different words for love and we only have one to contain everything.

What about the King James’ words we don’t recognize? G.A. Riplinger responds to this question:

“The … words in the KJV, which are unfamiliar, at first glance, to dictionary shy Americans are actually simpler and more accurate than their new substitutes. A ‘stomacher’ for example (Isa. 3:24) is NOT a belt, as new versions indicate, but a chest ornament. (It seems the only ‘simpler’ words in new versions are incorrect or from a corrupt Greek text.) New versions not only do not improve the KJV’s ‘sackbut’ (Daniel 3:7), calling it a ‘trigon’, but in the same sentence change the KJV’s simple ‘harp’ to a ‘zither’

This seems like a bizarre argument. How do I know that a stomacher is a chest ornament? I went to Blue Letter Bible to look up the verse and found that it says it’s a robe. Maybe it’s right. Maybe it’s a belt. Since this is the only place the word shows up in Scripture, it’s harder to tell.

It’s hard to understand how replacing one difficult term, a sackbut, with another difficult term, a trigon, is an argument. It amounts to “Well they do it to!” This doesn’t deal with the wording of the KJV. As for harp, the word is best translated as a lyre or zither.

But supposedly Riplinger has dealt with the whole argument by citing two verses. Well done.

A second claim is that: ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’, and ‘thine’ are out of date. The ‘pitch’ is that these words were spoken in 1611, are archaic, and need to be eliminated.

Let’s examine this claim. In his book ‘The King James Version Defended’, Edward F. Hills gives us some interesting insight into these words. On page 218, he says:

“… the English of the King James Version is not the English of the 17th century … It is Biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style … The King James Version … owes its merit, not to 17th century English – which was very different – but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation” [S12P218].

In his book ‘The Old Is Better’, Alfred E. Levell also comments on the need for thee’s and thou’s. On page 31, he says:

“Why did the AV translators not adopt the up to date English of their time? For one reason … accuracy of translation! Whenever the Hebrew and Greek texts use the singular of the pronoun, so does the AV; and whenever those texts use the plural, so does the AV … There is a distinct loss of accuracy in translation if ‘You’ is used for singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word … Thus in Luke 22:31-32 the Lord says to Peter “Satan hath desired to have you, to sift you as wheat,” “you” here referring to Peter and the other disciples; “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not,” “thee” and “thy” referring to Peter only. Such shades in meaning are completely lost when ‘you’ is used throughout” [S13P31].

The words: ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’ are clearly needed. The Holy Spirit picked these words for a reason: It is to distinguish the ‘singular you’ from the ‘plural you’ for the purpose of clarity. Praise God!

I can easily grant this shows a lack in our language today. At the same time, that doesn’t mean we still speak in thee and thou today. (Gotta love the statement that this is what the Holy Spirit chose, something I am sure the KJV translators would not want said.) It’s one reason in my recent Greek classes we even talked about how in the South we differ between you and y’all.

Objective, analytical, data shows new versions are NOT EASIER to read, they are HARDER. Also, new versions are wordier, have more syllables per word, and use harder words.

The words God chose, for His Traditional Majority Text, are simpler. And, like the use of ‘thee’, ‘thou’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’; each word was chosen for a reason. We may or may not understand each word, but it is there for a purpose; just like you and I are here for a purpose.

Lately; Bible publishers are trying to tell Christians the King James Bible is ‘hard to understand’. Their ‘claim’ is that we need to buy a ‘new version’.

Well, if the King James Bible is ‘hard to understand’, then this is a very, very, RECENT phenomenon. Our grandparents were able to read the King James!

And, how would Bible publishers explain this supposed problem with King James ‘readability’ when we are actually MORE EDUCATED than our grandparents?

No; their claim does not make sense. Something else is wrong.

And meanwhile, our great-great-great grandparents down the line were able to read Elizabethan English. Our older ancestors were able to read languages like Greek and Latin and Hebrew. People can read different things at different times due to the changes in language.

The truth is that the King James Bible is NOT the problem.

“The real gap is one of distance between God and man, not a lapse between us and Father Time … The spiritual chasm is so vast that even those close to Jesus could not understand him. He was NOT speaking archaic Aramaic to Mary and Joseph yet, “they understood NOT the saying which he spake unto them”. Obsolete words were NOT the obstacle when he asked Peter, “Are ye also yet WITHOUT understanding?” [S3P635].

Something to think about.

And many of the great heroes in the Bible didn’t understand, including Mary and Joseph, the apostles, and others in the Old Testament. Are we to assume that all of these figures didn’t understand because they were obstinate in sin?

I am not against the KJV if one prefers it and wants to use it. I am against saying it is the only one you should use and all others are wicked translations.

But we’ll go on next time.

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

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 19.1

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

So now we’re about to look at modern translations. Some stuff, I’m actually going to skip because it’s just so tedious. At any rate, the source material can be found here.

In the last chapter we learned that:

“… The KJV reverberates with ETERNAL FAMILIARITY … Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized version of the English Bible is the BEST EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE that the world HAS EVER SEEN … Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as ONE OF THE FINEST SAMPLES OF WRITING STYLES IN EXISTENCE … The KJV … has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the MOST BEAUTIFUL, it BEARS THE MOST FRUIT, it produces SPIRITUAL REVIVAL, it is the EASIEST TO MEMORIZE … the version of 1611 … is probably the BEST version EVER MADE … etc. etc. etc.

Actually, we just heard this asserted. One can say the KJV was a fine work for its time, but that doesn’t mean it will be the same today. If anything, this sounds eerily like the way that Muslims treat the Qur’an.

Now contrast those quotes with sales pitches for ‘modern versions’:

… the King James Bible is too hard to understand … its words are archaic … people don’t understand it … it has thee’s and thou’s …. today’s Christian needs is a ‘more readable’ version … etc. etc.

There is some validity to this. The English language has changed and we need translations that match the way of the usage of language for our time. One can say the KJV was beautiful for its time and still does maintain some great beauty today, but it is also a difficult translation to understand using words and idioms we no longer use.

These two views are diametrically opposed to one another. Only one of them is true. Either the King James Bible IS the … BEST EXAMPLE of English literature the world HAS EVER SEEN or it ISN’T.

So, should we believe:

  1. A) The ‘non-financially’ compensated comments of the first view?

or:

  1. B) Should we believe ‘salesmen’ and ‘marketing ads’ ?

We should believe what is true regardless of what the motivations are for someone saying it. I could just as well say that Johnson is a salesman for the position of KJV-onlyism so should I believe him? Of course, I can also point out that he is only giving one side of the equation.

Instead of emotionally (and philosophically) debating this question, let’s get the facts.

Sounds like a good plan, but I doubt that that will happen. To get the facts, one actually needs to consult both sides of the equation. Johnson does not have any opposing sources in his bibliography. He only quotes KJV-onlyists and then what they have to say about his opponents.

Sales pitches for new, modern, versions contain several ‘claims’. In this chapter, we will test them for truth.

And throughout this work I have been testing Johnson for truth and so far, he isn’t doing good. We’ll see if this gets any better, but I doubt that it will.

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 17.2

What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I’m going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after all. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

Johnson puts this in a number of sections and I will do the same.

The Spiritual Attack

“About 1582 … the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale’s English Version” [S2P233].

“The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity” [S2P239].

“Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call … to … undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version” [S2P239-240].

Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. “With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology” [S2P240].

Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle …

The problem with all of this is we have no statements from Catholic and/or Jesuit sources. It reminds me of what we say happens in politics on the conservative side. You get a leftist to present their case and then another leftist to say what they think about the conservative case.

The Physical Attack

“Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war – they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement” [S2P240].

Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan’s lies. With Drake, a type of ‘David’ was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.

Now, which side do you think God was on?

I use it to the experts on war history to comment on this. For the last question though, first off, I think the response from a Civil War discussion is better and I think it was Lincoln who said it. We should hope we are on God’s side. Second, I am not convinced God has a “side” in this. It could be a case of “A pox on both your houses.” This is not to say neither side is Christian, but both were acting outside of the Christian tradition.

The Outcome: God Protects His Own

Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:

“… the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power” [S2P240].

Hallelujah! Praise God!

I would think a more fitting response would be mourning like was done in Judges when Benjamin had been defeated. Yes, they were in the wrong, but they were still the brothers of Israel.

The Perfect Masterpiece

“Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece” [S2P242].

This perfect masterpiece: “… was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament” [S2P242].

English Protestantism: “… gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, – The King James Bible, called ‘The Miracle of English Prose'” [S2P242].

And if this is not idolatry, it comes awfully close. I wonder if Johnson thinks the Apocrypha is part of this perfect masterpiece. Oh, wait. Just did a check. He’s never mentioning it again after chapter 15. I’m not surprised.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.2

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

My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks to them. For now, the source material can again be found here.

These are some of the Jesuits’ beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?

“In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000. In 1589, when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by the name of Jacques Clement. Clement was called an ‘angel’ by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: … Jacques Clement has done a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the King then let’s do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let’s put him to death … we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein …” [S1P91-92].

As bad as that was, “The Jesuit’s murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a Catholic rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by a Father Varade, A JESUIT PRIEST. In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been TAUGHT by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot” [S1P92-93].

Six years later, “In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations” [S1P93].

Well “This was the last straw! Henry the IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:

… On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writings of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of heretic ‘tyrants’ or those INSUFFICIENTLY DEVOTED to the Papacy’s interests. The duke of Epernon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d’Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately what he heard in the confessional” [S1P93].

All of these sound bad and there are no primary sources cited. I do know there is a lot of misinformation on the medieval church and that period altogether, but for the sake of argument. Let’s accept all of this as true.

So what?

I mean, of course, it matters that it happened, but that doesn’t show that the text has been altered. I suspect most Roman Catholics who would read this would be quite ashamed to hear these kinds of accounts (Assuming they are true) and I dare say there are likely many times in Protestant history we have been the villains as well.

Reverend Gipp says: “This is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve his word? [S1P93-94]

This is a horrible argument with just a simple question to show how bad it is.

Who preserved the Old Testament before Jesus came?

Why, yes. The nation of Israel. Now what was that nation like? Just read your Old Testament and you will see. They were hardly honoring to YHWH for the majority and yet, they were the ones that God used to preserve His word.

God uses flawed human beings regularly. Aside from Jesus, they’re the only kind of human beings He has.

Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!

Now I would say we have a lot more in common that not, but that’s not relevant.

Should Protestants form ‘pacts’ or ‘agreements’ with Catholics? I think not.

The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.

What happened in the past if true was horrible, but one should not stay there. If Johnson wants the RCC to answer for all the sins of its past, and to an extent they should, then we as Protestants should own up to ours.

Either way, bad argument.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 15.1

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

Okay. I made a goof. Somehow, I skipped over chapter 15 which is about the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we’re going to go back and look at that one and see what has to be said. The original source can be found here.

In chapter 7 of his book: “An Understandable History Of The Bible”, Reverend Gipp gives us some insight into the Roman Catholic ‘Church’. He first begins with a contrast:

“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.) [S1P80].

So I did my looking up (Which is more than Johnson did I am sure) to find different responses to this just out of curiosity. One source said this would happen when we entered into Heaven. Others indicated that the church is not as dogmatic. One source said that the Protestant churches are rife with heresy and immorality. This might be interesting to look into more later, but it is not relevant now.

“FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) [S1P80].

As Reverend Gipp says: “Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe will depend on the authority you accept” [S1P80].

I am sure Catholics have their own interpretation here. Again, this is not the goal of this research.

“The Roman Catholic Church has always been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation is by grace, who needs mass? If salvation is by grace, who needs to fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he force a nation to obey him?” [S1P80]

“Rome can only rule over ignorant fear-filled people. The true Bible turns ‘unlearned and ignorant’ men into gospel preachers and casts out ‘all fear’ [S1P80-81].

For this latter one, I know some devout Catholics and these are the last words I would use to describe them.

“The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church [S1P80-81].

Therefore, Rome wanted a ‘different’ Bible. So:

“Rome received the corrupted … text … and further revised it to suit her own needs” [S1P81]. “This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtlety. The Roman Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title “Lord” and “Christ” from the human name Jesus, having the thief on the cross address Him as “Jesus” instead of “Lord” (Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7″ [S1P81].

Well, Gipp doesn’t tell us where this happened. I went and looked up these verses in the Douay-Rheims Bible online. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are there and Luke 23:42 refers to Jesus as Lord. Awfully strange how the RCC decided to hide those by putting them in their Bible.

And so, summarizing the corrupted Minority Text: “Its two outstanding trademarks are that orthodox Christianity has never used it, and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that ‘bloodily’) supported it” [S1P69].

Waiting for some argument for this in light of the above.

As to the gospel of Christ: “Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church’s reason for even existing? The answer is ‘No’. The Roman Catholic ‘Church’ does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ” [S1P81].

I would like to know where this is.

Romanist Carl Adam admits this:

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame – nay with pride – that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the gospel of Christ” [S1P81]

Thus we see the TRUE ‘doctrine’ of Rome! Now, let’s find out what Rome substitutes in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ:

First, it’s Karl Adam. Second, this sounds convincing, but as one who has seen political statements either made up or taken out of context, I wanted to look further. A deeper look at this section shows that

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day.”

Anyone can read it here.

“The vacancy left by the removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other ‘saints’ along with a chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time to ‘think’ about the true gospel” [S1P82].

Asserted but not shown and has nothing to do with textual history.

What else does history record about Rome? Some samples:

1) “In the fourteenth century the church of Rome … canonized Buddha as a saint” [S3P140].

If done, this was done in error not realizing the figure was Buddha and was seen as St. Josaphat. If this did happen, then what I have found is that it has been undone.

2) It was Rome who: “… burned persons who provided the Bible in a language the laity could read for themselves” [S3P140].

This did happen with Tyndale at least.

3) In the 16th century: “… the Roman Catholic Church put out the Majority Greek New Testament text, then placed the Textus Receptus, on ‘The Index’ of forbidden books” [S3P140].

This appears to be accurate, though likely not because of a conspiracy or cover-up. Anyone could go and get that if they really wanted to from a Protestant publisher.

4) It was Rome who was responsible for crucifying Christ (Matt.27:35).

This assumes that the nation of Rome is equal to the RCC.

5) It was Rome who was responsible for throwing Peter into prison (Acts 12:4 ).

6) It was Rome who was responsible for cutting off James’ head (Acts 12:1). and ….

7) It was Rome who was responsible for killing Paul (2 Tim 4:6).

And more of the same.

Next time, we will return to the Jesuits.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.1

What’s first to discuss with the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So last time we covered looking at the RCC. Again, I am not interested in differences between Protestants and Catholics here. I am interested in the history of textual transmission and anything related to that. As always, the source material can be found here.

In the previous chapter Satan used both Rome and the Roman Catholic ‘Church’.

In the previous chapter, we saw a bunch of assertions without primary resources cited. Unfortunately, more of the same here.

In this chapter he will use the ‘Jesuits’.

“The founder of the Jesuits was a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola… [S2P232], As to his character, Ignatius “… was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal, and vindictive” [S1P88]. Later in life, it is said he was “… unruly and conceited …” [S1P88].

Said to be that way by who later in life? As for in his youth, so what? There’s a number of great Christian people today who I am sure did not live holy and godly lives as youth.

Also, it is this same Ignatius Loyola that: “… the Catholic Church has canonized and made Saint Ignatius” [S2P232].

Well, that settles it doesn’t it? He must have been a complete heathen. This might work if you’re someone who is extremely anti-Catholic, but not for the majority of us. Also, it doesn’t demonstrate problems with the text even if granted.

“Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521 A.D.) so that his military career was over, Ignatius turned his thoughts to spiritual conquests and spiritual glory. Soon afterwards, he wrote a book called: “Spiritual Exercises”, which did more than any other document to erect a new papal theocracy and to bring about the establishment of the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, Catholicism since the reformation is a new Catholicism. It is more fanatical and intolerant” [S2P232].

Actually, it’s more called the counter-reformation. Also, kind of amusing to see Johnson citing a source condemning fanaticism and intolerance.

It is said that Ignatius Loyola “… produced an elite force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine Protestantism and ‘heresy’ throughout the world. Their training would require fourteen years of testing and trials designed to leave them with no will at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught that their only desire was to serve the Pope” [S1P88].

It is said by who? How reliable is the source? We don’t know. Johnson in this work has done everything he can to avoid primary sources. Also, of course they wanted to undermine Protestantism. Johnson wants to undermine Catholicism. Should I decree everything he says wrong then about the Catholic Church?

“The head of the Jesuits is called the ‘Black Pope’ and holds the title of General, just as in the military. That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their church is reflected in Loyola’s own words, “Let us be convinced that all is well and right when the superior commands it”. Also: “… even if God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey him, as master and guide, because God ordained it to be so.” He further elaborates: “We must see black as white, if the Church says so” [S1P88].

The last line is from Ignatius but that is also because the Church was seen as an infallible authority. Also, the fact of words being left out concerns me. It looks like it doesn’t concern Johnson.

“The Jesuits were to be the Vatican’s ‘plainclothesmen’. They were founded to be a secret society, a society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the positions of leadership” [S1P89].

Sounds like medieval conspiracy theory honestly. It would be nice to know what this is based on.

“Politics are their main field of action, as all the efforts of these ‘directors’ concentrate on one aim: the SUBMISSION of the world to the papacy, and to attain this the heads must be conquered first” [S1P89].

“The Jesuit priests were not required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In fact their dress was a major part of their disguise” [S1P89].

And “Murder is not above the ‘means’ which might be necessary to reach the desired ‘end’. The General of the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are committed by the members of this Satanic order” [S1P91].

Certainly no bias here!

“He [the Jesuit General] also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination … as long as these wicked deeds were not publicly known and this cause a scandal” [S1P91].

“That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following … quote from Paris’ book ‘The Secret History Of The Jesuits'” [S1P91].

“Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: … A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to slander him or his community …” [S1P91].

I’m not here to say if this is true or not, but if you are condemning people, even those who are deceased, of great wicked acts, you need more evidence than just assertions from people years later without citing primary sources.

Color me skeptical of again anything that Johnson says.

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

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 14.1

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

So we’re returning to this look at KJV-onlyism. After all, we’ve come this far. Might as well go all the way to the end. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

The reformation is running wild across Europe. There is revival in the land. Major changes are occurring and the good news of the gospel of grace is spreading. Many people are being blessed and many are thankful.

However, not everyone likes the gospel of grace. There are enemies to this good news.

In this chapter, Satan is once again seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. And, he is seeking those he may ‘use’.

Gotta love how the devil is always the boogeyman. Personally, there was good and bad both in the Reformation and I’m sure the same can be said for the counter-Reformation.

“In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church formed the Council of Trent” [S1P87]. “The Council of Trent was dominated by the Jesuits” [S2P235]. The purpose was to: “… undermine the Bible, then destroy the Protestant teaching and doctrine” [S2P237].

The latter could be true if you meant undermining Protestantism. I think at that time the genie was out of the bottle and there was no eliminating it. However, I have no reason to think they were trying to undermine the Bible.

“The Council of Trent systematically denied the teachings of the Reformation. The Council decreed that ‘tradition’ was on equal authority with the Bible” [S1P87].

The Council of Trent also decreed that:

“… justification was not by faith alone in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. In fact it stated that anyone believing in this vital Bible doctrine was CURSED” [S1P87].

The council’s exact words were:

“If anyone saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified, let him be ANATHEMA” [S1P87].

While I think this is an accurate set of quotations, would it have killed Johnson to go straight to the source?

“Now we see that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of officially cursing Jesus Christ! Would God use this ‘Church’ to preserve his Words?” [S1P87].

Apparently he had for 1,000 years.

So this was the ‘policy’ of the Council of Trent. But what about the results?

Specifically, history records that:

1) The Council of Trent condemned: “That Holy Scriptures contained all the things necessary for salvation …”

This could be since the RCC does put tradition up there with Scripture, but it needs to be shown, not asserted.

2) The Council of Trent condemned: “That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the help of Christ’s Spirit”.

Again, this needs to be shown. I think there are things that are plain that the RCC would agree we can all understand, but also that there are difficult things that Protestant scholars would say are not plain and we do need help to understand.

3) As to certain books in the Traditional Majority Text, the Council of Trent condemned them saying: “… they were apocryphal and not canonical”.

At this point, a writer could name those books, but I suppose Johnson doesn’t want to.

Either way, I have read the Apocrypha and I have no problem with Christians doing so.

4) The Council of Trent also said that: “… lay members of the church had NO RIGHT to interpret the Scriptures apart from the Clergy” [S2P237].

5) “The Council of Trent, after a prolonged and stormy session, also issued a decree that the entire Old Testament, including the Apocryphal books, were to be received and venerated with unwritten tradition as the Word of God” [S4P100].

6) On April 8th 1546, the Council of Trent declared that Jerome’s, corrupted, Latin Bible was: “… the authentic Bible of the Roman Church” [S4P99].

Again, would it have been too hard to quote Trent directly?

And lastly:

“The Papal machine officially closed all investigation into the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts in 1546, at the Council of Trent, by declaring -without a single German philologist, historian, or scholar present – that the corrupt manuscripts … are the inspired, canonical scriptures, and that anyone who does not go along with them is anathema – ACCURSED” [S11P61].

It’s hard to say what is going on here. The RCC did later on issue their own translation called the Rheims-Douay so it’s hard to imagine they closed all investigation.

So we see Satan using the Roman Catholic ‘Church’, the Jesuits, and the Council of Trent to resist the Reformation and to resist the spread of the true Word of God.

Actually, we just see assertions. There’s a lot of back and forth that went on and this is neither the time nor the place to deal with those issues. I’m just interested in textual issues and we have none of those really being dealt with here.

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