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)