Waymarks Waymarks stands for the integrity of the AV Bible
AV VERSES VINDICATED
In recent years it has become fashionable to question the reliability of translation in hundreds of places in the AV Bible. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, known as the Masoretic (for the OT) and the Received Text (for the NT) are also questioned in hundreds of places. None of these is justified. Holding to the AV Bible is not merely a matter of faith or tradition. There is ample evidence available to confirm the reliability of the English Authorized Bible.
Some tell us that only the original Scriptures were inspired. If that is so then we have no Scripture today for ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim.3:16. What is not inspired is not Scripture. But inspiration is not lost through translation as the many OT (Hebrew) verses quoted in the NT (Greek) prove.
Our God is able to preserve His own Word,: For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89.If God's word is settled in heaven, how can it be unsettled on earth? Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away, Mt.24:35. That the original manuscripts no longer exist is not surprising, as they would have been very quickly worn out through constant handling. But they were faithfully copied multitudes of times. Early translations were also made such as the 2nd Cent. Peshitto in the Syriac language. The vast majority of manuscripts and early versions are in agreement with the Received Text.
We can have confidence in our AV Bible. Its pedigree can be traced to at least the 2nd Century. The text of the RV and subsequent versions was shown to be corrupt more than 100 years ago, being based on two depraved manuscripts; the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. these two are still the basis of the modern evolving text of Nestle/UBS.
I wish to show in the following verses that departure from the AV reading is unwarranted.
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord make coats of skins, and clothed them. Anyone with no knowledge of Hebrew but able to use a Hebrew/English interlinear Bible in conjunction with a Bagster's Lexicon will discover that the Hebrew "gohr" is singular, (=skin, not skins). The plural would spoil the type, we are told, speaking of the redemptive work of Christ. The clothing of Adam and Eve is indeed a beautiful picture of redemption in Christ, but is the AV translation wrong? No type can sufficiently portray the anti-type, the Lord Jesus. Hence two goats were required on the day of Atonement. Also the tabernacle required a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. One skin simply would not have been sufficient. All, together, must speak of the glories and perfections of the Lord Jesus, and then only faintly.
In this connection we find an interesting verse, I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, Ezek.16:10. Here God speaks of His love towards an erring Israel. We suggest, in view of the use and symbolism of badger skins that these animals were used to clothe Adam and Eve. One skin would not be enough to cover one person nor to speak of Christ.
For those who still demur at the AV translation, we refer to the verse before Ezek.16:10, where we read in v.9, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, then note the marginal reading, "Heb.=bloods" . Putting bloods into the English reading would make nonsense of our language, so the translators used the singular instead of the plural. Skins is a faithful translation. Bear in mind that there is probably none alive today with the command of languages that these AV translators had. They were right in Gen.3:21, we conclude.
These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness.... The NIV has "east of Jordan" instead of this side Jordan. Critics will argue that this is quite correct. It was on the east side of Jordan, in the wilderness, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel. Moses died there in the wilderness and the people then journeyed westward into the promised land.
The implication behind this change is that the authorship of Deuteronomy is challenged. If the words this side are correct then Deuteronomy was written in the wilderness prior to the occupation of Canaan, and could only have been written by Moses. By making this change the NIV is suggesting that though Moses spoke the words, they may not have been recorded until a much later date. The RV (an obsolete version) read "beyond Jordan", declaring thereby that Moses certainly did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Most other versions have something similar.
So is this side a true translation? Those turning to a concordance might feel that doubt remains because the Hebrew word is geh-ver which may be translated "the other side", "the side of", "beyond", "this side", etc. depending on the context. All translators therefore have to make a judgment as to which word to use.
There is no problem for the believer because Deuteronomy states that when Moses had made an end of WRITING the words of this law in a book, he commanded that the book be placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant, (31:24). "This law" is the whole book of Deuteronomy, which Moses began to declare on this side Jordan (1:5).
The AV translators believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. They knew that Moses both spoke and wrote Deuteronomy in the wilderness, east of Jordan, which from his point of view was this side. To translate any other wise is mischievous, deceitful, an abuse of the word of God. It reveals a heart of blind unbelief and wilful opposition to the things of God. Such versions cannot be trusted and need to be rejected in their entirety. The strange thing is that modern versions do acknowledge Moses to be the writer ("so Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests" 31:9,NIV). Presumably they think he did it posthumously.
We hear one last cry from the unbeliever; "if Moses wrote the whole of Deuteronomy how is it we read o f his death and burial in the final chapter?" We patiently reply, "because God had told him all about it. Why don't you read the book?
Deuteronomy has been under attack very largely because of its prophetic character. Moses forewarned the children of Israel before they ever entered into the promised land that they would deny their God and therefore would be driven back out into captivity, scattered among the nations. (As they are today).But they would be restored to their land at the coming again of the Lord (30:1-5). Moses believed in the premillenial return of Christ. Those who do not believe Moses do not believe Christ. He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me:for he wrote of me (John 5:46).
Challenging the authorship of books of the Bible is the work of Higher Criticism. Those who hold to the NIV show that they are tainted by both Higher and Lower (Textual) Criticism.The two cannot be divorced.
Judges 6:11 Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press, to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour. Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the Lord. There would have been nothing valiant in that. It would have been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press.He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.
The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".
1 Samuel 13:21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes,and to sharpen the goads. Prof. David Gooding wrote concerning this verse: " In 1 Sam.13:21 there occur the Hebrew letter [sic] pym. Now for centuries no one knew exactly what these letters meant in this context. The AV Translators did their best and came up with a translation of the verse, 'they had a file for the mattocks'. In comparatively recent times, however, as Alan Millard gas reminded us in a very interesting article (Bulletin of the Anglo Israel Archeological Society, Vol.6, 1986-8, p.46), archeologists discovered a number of ancient weights inscribed in the early Hebrew script with the letters pym - just like years ago we used to see big brass weights in butchers' shops stamped with the letters 1lb, or 2lbs. From the weight of these ancient Hebrew weights it was easy to deduce that the letters pym inscribed on them meant 'two thirds of a shekel'.
In the light of this new information we can see that 1 Sam. 13:21 means, not 'they had a file for the mattocks', but' and a charge was a pym for the ploughshares'.... We should be grateful to God for the work of archeologists and scholars which enable us to obtain ever more exact and precise renderings of His infallible word". The Word; issue 34; p.4.
The professor has not done his homework. The AV Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text in which the word pym occurs nowhere. It is therefore not a Bible word. the Hebrew word found in 1 Sam.13:21 is p'tzee-rah, which our translators, being Hebrew scholars as yet unsurpassed, knew meant 'a file'. they gave a fuller meaning in the margin without any hint of a doubt attached to it.
It is likely that the Hebrew text was first mutilated by Origen when he produced his Septuagint version. Certainly the change is made there. this has been seized upon by modern Bible mutilators who cannot bear to think that God would faithfully preserve His word.
I have an exact and precise translation of God's infallible word. It is called 'The Holy Bible'. It is the Authorized Version. One blemish alone would make it unholy, but there are no flies in this precious ointment. I do not need ungodly and apostate men scrabbling in the dirt for MY bible to be ever updated. I am not an evolutionist!
The verse tells us that though no smith was to be found in the land (what a sad day that was!) yet they had a file which maybe they had hidden from the Philistines. Just as Saul and Jonathan had managed to hide their swords from the Philistines, v.22.
Job 28:2 Iron is taken out of the earth and brass is molten out of the stone. The opening verses of Job 28 are sometimes referred to as the mining passage. Verse two may imply a mining activity but the Hebrew does not actually say so. Therefore a false translation is made in modern translations to accommodate the idea. In v.4 "flood" (nah-ghal) is made to read "shaft" and the rest of the verse is mangled beyond recognition. But how do they arrive at "shaft"? GESENIUS says "probably a mine" without any evidence. We note that WILKINSON wrote, "Gesenius, a notorious liberal, specialised in hanging the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals". (Our Bible Vindicated; p.104)
The NEB suggests in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure, but the AV translators never thought so. The word is not uncommon in the OT and is translated consistently in relation to torrents of running water, (Ps.18:4, 74:15, etc.). So JND and a host of others perpetuate the error. Lest any should think there really is uncertainty in the meaning of the Hebrew word, let a company of modern orthodox Jews have the last word. In 1988, in Jerusalem, they they published a bible based on the most accurate Masoretic text available (they say) in which the word nah-ghal is translated "watercourse". I have the book in front of me. It is a parallel Hebrew/English edition, known as the Jerusalem Bible. (Not the RC one by that name!).
Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell. This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27 where the Greek word hades is translated "hell". Thus we see that the OT sheol is equivalent to the NT hades meaning hell. But hell is an unpopular word among the critics so it must be removed. We are assured by these critics that any changes are made for clarity or accuracy. One Bible critic, Mr Vine, would rather have the word hades put into our English NT instead of hell. So we ask him what does the would hades mean? But he confesses that he does not know. I quote from his dictionary, "It has been thought by some that the word etymologically meant the unseen (from a negative, and eido to see), but this derivation is questionable; [by whom?] a more probable derivation is from hado, signifying all-receiving". His words "more probable" means that he hadn't got a clue and his guess is no better than anyone else's.
This interpretation allows for the two-compartment hell popularized by Schofield. That is, everybody went to hell in OT times, the good to the Paradise side and the bad to the burning side. When Christ rose He took Paradise with Him. But this is mere conjecture. There is no verse that says any such thing.
That hell (sheol) was not all embracing can be seen from Ps.9:17.The wicked shall be turned into hell. If all go to hell anyway, why do the wicked need to be spoken of? Or else why does not Scripture specify "the wicked shall be turned into hell-badside"? David never expected to go DOWN into sheol (See Bible margin; grave=hell).Ps.49:14. That was for the wicked. He expected to go UP to heaven, Ps.55:15. Amos assures us that heaven is up and hell is down. Amos 9:2. That is how it has always been. That is how it still is. No saint ever went down into hell. Some suggest that Jacob thought he might end up there in hell, but no Scripture says that he ever did.
So does "Hades" clarify the reading? It is only the anglicised form of the Greek word which does not help us at all. The scholars put it in because they don't know what it means! But they do know what hell means, and that may be why they fear the word and leave it out.
The Greek word gehenna is also translated "hell" in the AV, e.g. Mt.5:29 The whole body shall be cast into hell. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we note that the body is not cast into the hades/hell. It is the soul which goes down into that hell. Gehenna relates to the Lake of Fire into which hades/hell will eventually be cast, Rev.20:14. There death and hell give up their prey, the body from the grave and the soul from hell to be reunited in the Lake of Fire at the end of time. This ids the dreadful fate of those who die in unbelief. I have no difficulty over one English word being used to translate two different Greek words. The fire of hell is for ever. Just use your concordance and look up all the references and the meanings become clear. There is no need to tamper with the translation.
(See Waymarks No.18)
This is their resemblance through all the earth. The reliability of the OT Scriptures has never been seriously challenged until recent times. The exquisite care of the Jews in transmitting the text from generation to generation was too well manifested for any attempt to falsify it in any part. The English translation in the AV Bible is acknowledged to be a 100% accurate translation of that text. It is a serious error therefore to think that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as the Septuagint is superior. Even liberal scholars are ready to admit that the Septuagint is a very defective translation. Yet we hear brethren quoting from it against theAV.
We have an example in this verse. "Resemblance" is a translation of the Hebrew word gah-yin which is more commonly translated "eyes", or "in the sight of". Orthodox Jews accept the AV translation. A modern Jewish bible puts it "their appearance". When the Septuagint changes it to "this is their iniquity" it has first of all to change the Hebrew word to gah-vohn without any authority. There is no ms. in existence with that reading. Darby notes this alternative but relegates it to a footnote without changing the text. The NIV has "iniquity" in the text, and !appearance" in a footnote. It is the NRSV-Catholic Edition which reads "this is their iniquity in all the land" and that is exactly how it was quoted by one of our leading Bible-teachers recently.
If public men think that their intellect is superior to the Scripture, so that they may change words to suit their own interpretations, then the great apostasy is well and truly upon us. Read the passage as we have it in the AV and ask what is being resembled by what? Then note a fourfold "this is" and the explanation is right before us. This is an ephah; this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah; this is their resemblance; this is wickedness. It is wickedness personified.
Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? Prof. David Gooding writes "When the Lord Jesus used the term 'children of the bridechamber', it was the every day expression for 'guests of the bridegroom'. But the fact is in English we do not call wedding guests 'children of the bridechamber', any more than we call potatoes 'earth-apples'. Why not then, use the straight forward, natural English expression which everybody immediately understands, instead of a literal translation of an oriental expression which in English sounds peculiar and puzzles many readers? At least, that is what many modern translations do in such cases, and why they differ from the AV". The Word; issue 36; p.23.
Gooding does not believe in verbal inspiration. 'Bridechamber' and 'bridegroom' are both mentioned in this verse and they are not the same. If guests of the bridegroom were intended then we would have to read, 'how can the guests of the bridegroom mourn as long as HE is with them?', as in the NIV. But that is a false reading. We must read Scripture carefully. Thus Prof. Edersheim tells us that "all the invited guests bore the general name of ' children of the bridechamber'. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Vol.1 p.355. the bride's guests were there as well. By this we see that modern versions fail to supply an accurate translation.
But the whole significance of the verse is denied in modern versions. We are not reading of an ordinary wedding feast. the context is the disciple's relationship with the Lord in something which is entirely new. They were not mere guests at this wedding feast, to go home when it was all over. they were children. They would remain children of the bridechamber even after the bridegroom had been taken from them - and crucified.
Friends enjoy closer relationships than those who are but guests, but these first disciples were more than just friend of the bridegroom. The designation 'friend of the bridegroom'. belongs uniquely to John the Baptist, (Jn.3:29). the bride is made upon all believers from Pentecost to the Rapture. John was outside of that, being sent before Him. so these who were first described as children of the bridechamber, enjoying an intimate relationship with the bridegroom, are also part of that bride which is the Church. They were all together on the day of Pentecost, the birth day of the Church, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them.
Some seeds fell by the wayside. It is being taught by some that the seeds in this verse is not the word, but are persons being sown. They concede that in Luke 8:11, The seed is the word of God is an accurate translation, so making the Lord contradict Himself as do all the modern versions. They know that the word is the seed and he which received seed by the wayside (Mt.13:19) means he that was sown with the seed by the wayside or had the seed sown in him. It was sown in his heart, the verse says so. The sower never sowed him anywhere. The scholars cannot grasp these elementary truths.
Moreover if thy brother should trespass against thee... It is alleged that the words against thee should be omitted from this verse. One reason given is that some Greek mss omit them. In fact just two mss omit them, against the majority which keep them. These two are the Sinaiticus(found in a rubbish bin in a Romish monastery by Tischendorf) and the Vaticanus, (kept in the Vatican and never fully inspected by any believer at any time in its history.) Newberry lists some of the mss supporting 'against thee' but his list is by no means complete. JND keeps the words without even a footnote. The RV keeps the words but has a footnote, as also the NIV. Not even the Doauy-Rheims omits them. We have to come to the J.W. New World Translation to find their omission.
The words are quoted by several of the so-called Fathers long before the Sin. and Vat. were invented. They are inspired words of Scripture. Their removal makes way for the Romish confessional box. Their removal allows sin to be covered up, for I can go to a sinning brother, who has sinned, not against me but against another brother, or maybe against his neighbour and certainly against his God and if I can persuade him to stop then no one else need know. We can sweep it under the carpet. We trust that is not the reason why some of our dear brethren want the words wrested from Scripture.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master, even Christ. Exception is taken to these words by some of our teachers. They do not like Christ being Master, so they tell us, "the editors of the Greek Text amend verse 8 to read didaskolos = teacher (RV), though JND uses "instructor..." (What the Bible Teaches; Mt./Mk.p.308). What Greek Text? We presume the Westcott / Hort text is meant. These two Anglicans dabbled in spiritism and were hostile to evangelical truth. The Greek word for "Master" occurs in the majority of mss, the alternative being found in a handful of Romish mss. They go on to tell us that as the word should be "teacher", so the words "even Christ" should be omitted because the Holy spirit is now our Teacher and not Christ. But these words are well attested, being quoted by two of the early Fathers (so-called), NOVATIAN and GREGORY OF NYSSA. Critics should meditate upon Eph.4:20,21 where Paul reminds the Ephesian saints that they have heard and have been taught by the Christ that they probably never saw in the flesh. Those who do not hear His voice remain without eternal life. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. Jn.13:13.
....A woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment.... (Also see Mk.14:1-9, Lk.7:36-50, Jn.12:1-9). There appears in all four Gospels an account of a woman pouring an ointment on the Lord. The careless reader concludes that the same event is being referred to in all four gospels. a careful comparison reveals three separate occasions when a woman approached the Lord with ointment.
The first time was during the Lord's Galilean Ministry, recorded for us by Luke. We learn from v.24 that John the Baptist was still alive so this happened quite early in the Lord's public ministry.
The second time was six days before the Passover, recorded by John. It was the day before the Lord rode into Jerusalem seated upon an ass, (12:12.) so it was at the end of the Lord's public ministry and it took place in Judea and not in Galilee.
The third time was only two days before the Passover, being the same Passover recorded by John, evident in the fact that both Matthew and Mark tell us that the disciples prepared for that supper, it being the night of His betrayal. Matthew and Mark speak of that third anointing.
In order to harmonize these accounts (and beware of men who want to "harmonize" the Scriptures) certain criteria are followed by the critics. The first is that the Bible is no different from any other literary work. That is, it does not have any divine origin. It then follows that the writers are liable to make mistakes (no such thing as verbal inspiration) and what they did write down was largely legendary, passed on from earlier sources by word of mouth. Then, the gospel writers allegedly copied from each other. They were therefore guilty of plagiarism!
So we find in Readings in St John's Gospel; William Temple, "He comes first to His friends at Bethany. They most naturally arrange a supper for Him. They do this not in their own house, but in the house of Simon the Leper (St. Mark xiv,3, only St. Mark has a wrong note of time; his chronology of Holy Week, and consequently that of the other two synoptists, is mistaken at several points, especially the date of the crucifixion itself. St. John is all through this period both referring to the Marcan record and correcting it)."
Temple was a prominent apostate of his day (1881-1944). He was a one -time Archbishop of York and then of Canterbury. (Need we say more?). We know that godless clerics could not possibly produce any spiritual work, but what is grievous is that the same wicked lies are now commonly promoted from our own platforms. The lie is this:- Matthew and ark say TWO days whilst John says SIX days so at least one of them has got it wrong. How frustrated God must be "trying to get the message across" and these gospel writers keep getting it muddled up. It is a satanic lie of course. If you do not believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture then there is no way you will get into God's heaven. you simply are not a believer. How can you be saved if you do not believe in the infallible, inerrant word of God? Some are so confused over the matter that they tell us that six days might mean two days!!
This subject has nothing to do with versions either. Either you believe the Bible implicitly or not at all. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.
Now a little application. there is an interesting omission in Luke's account. the Lord did not say that the woman had done it for His burial as the other three writers tell us. For the Lord had not up to that time spoken to His disciples concerning His death. This was a poor sinful woman who came to the Saviour in simple faith and devotion and received forgiveness of sins.
At the end of His ministry the Lord had spoken of His impending crucifixion, burial and resurrection. The disciples could not grasp it but two women did. Mary, who was not a sinful woman like the woman of Luke 7, was a spiritual woman and that is why she brought her 1lb of spikenard and anointed His feet. she had appreciated what lay before her Lord. It was done against His burial, the Lord said so. Four days later another woman wished to be associated with His death so she anointed the Lord's head as Mary had anointed His feet.
Why hast thou forsaken me, has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy.
We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptable one.
The words from the cross are reported slightly differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.
Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24. Not all the Jews had done this.There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of the unfaithful spoke half Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god. We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every other car. their speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions.
Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. there were no more until John the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.
However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit.
God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord.
There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,- "Several verses in the New Testament appear at first [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably [my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."
But it doesn't say "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is That field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew.If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible.
Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, what right has anyone else to pontificate on the matter?
Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/aramaic "the vernacular".
There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.
As it is written in the prophets. This verse is followed by two quotations, one from Malachi, and the other from Isaiah. Textual critics tell us that the original reading was "as it is written in Isaiah", and that "someone, who recognized that the citation was a collation from two prophets, simply 'corrected' the text". The original writer was Mark. Thus modern scholars regard Mark as stupid, ignorant of OT Scripture, and not Spirit-led. they also show themselves to be apostate, not believing in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, or else they believe that the Holy Spirit directed Mark to write lies, if indeed they believe that Mark wrote Mark 's Gospel in the first place. The modern versions all carry the lie, from JND's New Translation; the RV and onwards. Notice also how JND (with most modern versions) omits "without a cause" from Mat.5:22, thereby charging the ord with sin. See Mk.3:5
For Herod feared Kohn, knowing that he was a just man and holy, and observed him, and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. This is a much mutilated verse in the modern versions. The NIV reads "Because Herod feared Kohn and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled, yet he liked to listen to him".
The AV Translators knew what the simplest Bible reader is able to grasp, that Herod certainly did not protect him but allowed the scheming and vile Herodias to have him beheaded. Of course, the Translators also knew that the word for "observed" may be translated as "protected" or "kept him (safe)" but as it plainly cannot mean that in this context, they relegated that translation to the margin. The meaning is brought out in Luke 2:19, where the same Greek word is used, Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. hat is what Herod did with John. What a pity our critics didn't notice this verse. Scripture is its own interpreter. The NIV tells us that Mary treasured up all these things. As the critics complain about inconsistencies so-called in the AV translation perhaps they might have been consistent themselves and have Herod treasuring up John. But they cannot bear the thought of Herod actually understanding what John was saying to him. That is because no modern critic understands the truths of Scripture and they assume that therefore no other of their ilk could understand it either. So they have Herod puzzled instead of doing many things. This time the alteration is not a matter of translation but of a different Greek text. The critics have changed the original Greek word. Only a few ancient mss. support the modern reading and the vast majority of mss. support the AV (as always!). So what are the "many things" that Herod did? If you cannot tell us, say the critics, that proves the AV is wrong. Everything has to be explained away to these dark-minded rationalists. The Scripture doesn't tell us what these many things were that Herod did and that is enough for any Bible believer. But what that man did were as a result of hearing John's preaching, which was essentially a message of repentance. The wretched man started trying to put his life right but he had left it too late. One other thing, you do not listen gladly to a man you cannot understand. That alone shows us the nonsense of modern translations.
James White is one of those who mutilate Scripture, as he writes in his book, The King James only Controversy, concerning Mark 6:20. "The Greek term simply does not mean 'observe' but instead means 'to protect'". e have shown that to be false, simply by looking in a concordance. The title of his book is misleading. He teaches that there is a cult that will not read, use , or recognize any bible apart from the AV. Then he proceeds to knock down his straw man. I have never met any such people, for those who know that the AV is the word of God for English speaking believers know perfectly well that the same Scriptures have been accurately translated into all the major languages of the world. And the "controversy" is with those who deny that God could possibly preserve his word for all generations.
Therefore Mr, White has to corrupt Ps.12:6,7. He says, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever should really be "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people for ever." What people does Mr White wish to be protected from? They can only be the godly and faithful of v.1. He gives no reasons at all for the change, only that Ps.12 doesn't mention the "King James Version of the Bible", and, "nowhere does this passage tell us how God will preserve His words". So therefore He can't, according to Mr White. Any believer knows how God has preserved His words. The unbeliever thinks he can meddle with Scripture as he will. This whole book is an attack, not merely on the AV, but on the integrity of Holy Spirit given Scripture.
How has Scripture been preserved? By the faithful copying of faithful men, a work overseen by the Holy Spirit of God.
Mark 10:28,29 (see Waymarks No.17)
Mark 15:34 (see Mat.27:46)
He that believeth not shall be damned. We can understand why apostate critics gnash at the Scriptures and rear out whole passages when they read words such as these. Some tell us that vv.9-20 of Mark 16 should be omitted from Scripture. But the evidence for their inclusion is overwhelming. Even the AV critic, J N Darby, wrote, "I do not enter on the question of the authenticity of verses 9-20 here. I read them as Scripture.Burgon has pretty well demolished the authorities [he meant the perverted mss] against them". However, he did not like the word "damned" so he changed it to "condemned", keeping in line with most modern versions. When we demur at this change we are told "don't you appreciate that the AV translates katakrino as "condemned" in every other instance but one?". "Yes", we reply, "we also have our concordance. But have YE not read he that believeth not is condemned already? Jn.3:18". But that should read "judged already", say the critics. That change also is seen as false because the judgment of unbelievers is reserved until that great day of Judgment at the Great White Throne (Rev.20:13). God does not judge twice for the same offence, as the modern versionists would have it.
God's order is this; all are condemned from birth by unbelief, for none was ever born a believer, and all are to be righteously judged for unbelief AND FOR EVERY ACT OF SIN at that final assize, unless refuge is sought at the Cross. The unbeliever, refusing Christ, will be damned eternally at that coming day. Men do not like the word damned because they know what it means, and that is why Satan has placed the word on the tongue of unbelievers as a daily invective in order to take the sting out of it. For the same reason he has introduced "hell" as an oath on the lips of the ungodly. So our coy bible teachers will "prefer" hades to hell.
To be damned is to be eternally ruined yet never annihilated in the everlasting flames of the Lake of Fire. And if there figurative as some of our unbelieving critics tell us, then whatever must the reality be like?
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem. to present him to the Lord. Modern versions read "their purification" because, they tell us, that is what the Greek says. It matters not what Lev.12 says concerning the woman alone being required to make purification. They care nothing that Joseph is therefore regarded as the father of the child, and that all the family was unclean and needing purification. They are not concerned that Scripture is made to contradict itself and that they show themselves to be unbelievers. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (Jn.5:46). To say that there is no Greek text for the singular reading is false because the TBS published one, and Scrivener, who was on the RV committee, published his in1881. I have my copies in front of me.
Luke 2:40, 52 (see Waymarks No.19)
No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and,lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. 'D.G.' writes in a Christian magazine, 'Note these last three words, 'done unto Him'. They are a mistaken translation. the correct rendering of the Greek would be 'done by Him'. Greek grammar puts the matter beyond doubt;.....All modern translations (including .N.Darby's) agree that the AV's translation is mistaken here.How its translators came to make what is such an elementary mistake in Greek grammar we shall never know.'
There were eight scholars responsible for the AV translation of Luke's gospel. This is what A McCure tells us of them in his book, Translators Revived :-
HENRY SAVILE: Tutor in Greek and Maths to Elizabeth I.He became famous for his mathematical learning. Later made Warden of Merton College.
JOHN HARMER: King's professor of Greek; Headmaster of Winchester School for 9 years; Warden of his college for 17 years.
JOHN AGLIONBY: Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. An excellent linguist.
LEONARD HUTTON: Known as an excellent Grecian, well versed in the learned languages.
GEORGE ABBOT: Entered Balliol College, Oxford at age of fourteen. Fellow at age of twenty one.
We are to understand that eight men, each of them of outstanding ability in the field of linguistics, and working together on the AV translation all made the same 'elementary mistake'! Not one of them spotted it. Neither did the other teams of academics as they cross checked each others' work. If 'D.G.'s (David Gooding's) academic attainments are not higher than those achieved by the men of of the AV, then we trust that we shall never hear of him again. We must assume that he is also as fluent in Greek and several other languages as he is in his mother tongue, because they were. But 'D. G.' is wrong. He has misunderstood the passage and appears only to be looking for opportunity to decry the translation that God has mightily blessed since 1611.
I am not a Greek student. All I can do is look in my Wenham's and note that auto = to him. It is auto in every Greek ms.If some then tell us that there is an unusual grammatical construction in this verse, we point out that it was well enough known in 1611. So if we keep to the AV translation, what does it mean? Norman Crawford explains the verse precisely, '[Pilate] sent Christ to Herod and no sentence of death was pronounced by the Tetrarch.' What the Bible Teaches; Vol.7. That is, Herod did not do anything with the Lord that would require the death sentence to be passed. that was the amazing thing! So Pilate said in that case he would just chastise the Lord and let Him go (v.16).
If we accept 'D.G.'s translation, 'I sent you to Him [sic]; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done by Him', we would understand that Pilate had sent the chief priests and rulers to Herod, and amazingly, Christ did not do anything in front of Herod to warrant death. Pilate was already well aware that the Lord was not guilty of any offence. He did not need Herod to tell him that. He hoped that the evil Herod would destroy Him anyway. But Herod did not even put the Lord on trial.
And do 'all modern translations agree that the AV is wrong here'? That statement is not justified by examination. Here is what one modern version says: 'No, nor Herod neither. For I sent you to him, and behold nothing worthy of death is done to him'. The Layman's New Testament; Sheed and Ward; 1927.
Those who attack the AV often make sweeping statements without bothering to check the evidence.
John 1:12 (see Waymarks No.17)
Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also must I bring,and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Bible critics seize on this verse as evidence of a defective translation in the AV. They have pointed out that the second fold (Gk.poimnee )should be translated "flock" because a different Greek word is used for each, the first fold being aulee. They think that the AV translators were too dull to notice the two different words. They clamour for Dynamic Equivalence but deny that liberty to the AV. So let uor revisionists be consistent and make the verse read, "other sheep I have which are not of this palace". That is how Darby translates aulee in Mt.26:3. These men will have to defend themselves so they tell us, " The difference is vital. Israel aas a nation was kept in by a wall of separation (Eph.2:14) as in a fold. But today the "other sheep" of the believing Gentiles are formed into "one flock" with the believing Jews, and this is held together not by an external code of laws but by a common attraction to the "one Shepherd". As has often been truly said, we are not all held in by a wall around us, we are all drawn in by a Shepherd in the midst of us." (JGT, Present Truth, Vol.8. No.93.
When we look at the context we see that boundaries are very much in view, even for the flock of God. If there is no wall round this flock then a door (v.9) is totaaly superfluous form us today. Common attraction does not hold sheep. Though the grass be ever so green where they are, yet they remain prone to wander. So His sheep are held secure in His hand and in His Father's hand. From that enfolding none can be plucked out and none can wander off. Of course, the true believer loves his Lord and loves the Shepherd's voice. So they will nmot follow a stranger. There are none stranger than the modern versionists.
Thus our translators knew what they were doing when they translated poimnee as fold, even though they translated it as flock in Mt.26:31, Lk.2:8, and 1 Cor.9:7. Objectors will have to believe that they were opposed to the teaching of the Holy Spirit in their translation. Thoser who have looked into the vexed question of modern versions know where the oppossition lies.
Dynamic Equivalence is interpretation, rather than translation. The AV Translators used Formal Equivalence which is word for word translation as far as they were able. That means verb for verb, noun for noun, tense for tense etc. Modern men care nothing for this because they do notm believe in verbal inspiration. Here is an example:- "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable". Romans 11:29 RSV.There is no Greek word in the NT that can be translated "irrevocable" and it is the calling that is being spoken of, not the call, which is without repentance. A few days after I was saved in 1955 I bought a copy of the RSV. The young brother who got me to go to a gospel meeting where I was then saved urged me to throw it in a dustbin. That was sound advice though it took me a few years to see it. The RSV is a pollution. We see it quoted in popular Christian journals with much sadness.
John 13:2 (see Waymarks No.18)
I am the way, the truth, and the life. Men will use their defective grasp of the English language in order to malign the Scriptures, which is what so often happens when they attack the language of the Authorized Bible. An example, heard recently, is the misquoting of this verse to make it read, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.". The critics will have us to know that there are two "ands" in the Greek text. (They only use the Greek when it suits them, otherwise they hold to what they call Dynamic Equivalence which means they can make it up as they go.)
The translators of the AV went in for accurate translation (known as Formal Translation ) but knew that in the English language a sentence carrying enumerations requires an "and" only between the last two items. Between earlier enumerations a comma suffices. Note the clumsy rendering of the verse by JND, Hort, the NIV, and others. If brethren do not understand plain English, how can they possibly expound the English Bible to us? Yet they will boast that they know a few Greek words. Let readers be assured that God is competent to produce an English Bible that we may safely refer to as the Scriptures, from cover to cover. Scripture does not, and cannot change but all modern versions change because their authors believe in an evolving bible.
John 20:17 (see Waymarks No.16)
For of a truth against thy Holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed....by the name of thy holy child Jesus. These verses link the deity of Christ with his virgin birth. The word CHILD appears in Tyndale, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible and even in the RC Rheims bible.Also there is not one ms. giving DOULOS (=servant). The Greek word used is PAIS which the AV Translators were well aware mat be translated CHILD or SERVANT according to the context. Thus, He hath holpen his servant Israel (Luke 1:54) and healed the child (Luke 9:42). If we read SERVANT instead of CHILD in Acts 4:27,30 then Christ is brought down to the level of a sinning man for in the same context we read thy servant David. (v.25). Again we see the spiritual intelligence of the AV Translators.
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. and he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This verse is missing entirely from all modern versions because it is a crystal clear confession of faith in Jesus Christ being the Son of god. It is a confession essential to any conversion. Darby in a footnote in his New Translation wrote, "v.37 in the Authorized Version is recognized as not genuine". If a lie is stated boldly some folk will believe it. However, it has been pointed out that the verse was quoted by Irenaeus 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written. It is cited by Cyprian 90 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, and it has an unbroken chain of testimony from the Old Latin (2nd Cent.) and the Vulgate (5th Cent.) to the uncial manuscript "E" (6th to 7th Cent.) to the present time.(P Ruckman, Problem Texts; p.331.)
So why do some of our brethren refute the verse? Is it not because some of them are pseudo-brethren? (2 Cor.11:26). If the verse is not recognized it is because the god of this world hath blinded their minds.
And when he had apprehended him, he put him into prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth unto the people. Bible critics seize upon this verse in order to try to prove that the AV reading, Easter, is wrong. They are anxious to tell us that the true rendering should be "Passover". They ignore the wealth of evidence against the notion, and the volumes that have been written on the subject. A very useful defence of the use of the word Easter can be found in The Answer Book by Dr S G Gipp.
Yet we find the question raised again, "Is the word "Easter" just an inaccurate translation? Is Easter a Christian or a Jewish festival? The reply given, in Question Box; Believers Magazine, Dec.96. was "The actual word used in Acts 12:4 is Pascha and is of Aramaic origin. It refers to the Passover.... Thus Herod was waiting until after the Passover period was over". We reply, "How thoughtful of him. How kind and compassionate he must have been to the Jews. It mattered not that they had killed the Lord on Passover Day itself.
But the ACTUAL word used? What about that? I open my Bible and find the ACTUAL word used is EASTER. The conclusion I must come too is that my Bible is not the ACTUAL word of God. And of course, no Bible on earth is the ACTUAL word of God because, insist the critics, God's ACTUAL words disappeared with the original manuscripts.
The New Nicolaitans will now inform us what is and what is not the ACTUAL word of God. these men now teach that we cannot, dare not, trust our Bible without the help of their scholarship. But all ought to be aware by now that 99.9% of all scholarship is apostate and has been so for the last 5000 years. Scholarship built the tower of Babel. (For a history of apostate scholarship begin reading at Gen.4:17-24. "Enoch"= initiated!).
Our translators were well aware that Pascha usually means "Passover". This is why they translated it thus 28 out of the 29 times that the word is found in the NT. They also knew that the Passover feast had in fact already gone and so a very significant phrase is inserted; then were the days of unleavened bread, these days being the days that follow immediately after the feast of the Passover. They also knew that Herod was a Roman idolater whose god, Astarte, was the "Queen of Heaven", to be worshipped particularly at sunrise on Easter Morning.
So, led by the Spirit of God, the word "Easter" was placed by the translators on to the Holy page of Scripture. There was no Greek word for Easter so Pascha had to be used by Luke and to avoid confusion he reminded his readers that these were the days of unleavened bread when Peter was seized. And no, Easter was not at that time a Christian feast. It never has been a Christian feast. The celebration of Easter in any form remains a Pagan rite, along with the celebration of the Christ-mass.
The church of God, which he purchased with his own blood. Bible believers take this to be a clear statement of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse is accurately translated from reliable manuscripts. Because the verse shows Christ to be God it has long been a source of contention to some. J Heading wrote, "the translation 'purchased with His own blood' can be paraphrased more helpfully as 'purchased with the blood of His own Son' (Acts, p.254). He knew that it could not be translated thus. there is no authority whatever for the inclusion of 'Son' in the Greek text. So Heading paraphrased 'more helpfully'! This is an attempt to improve on the work of the Holy spirit Who supplied and preserves all Scripture. Hort was the first to include 'Son' in his Greek text, though they dared not print it in the Westcott/Hort RV Bible. Darby's New Translation reads 'with the blood of His own' which is ambiguous and not good English. W Kelly confessed that "the expression as it stands in the Authorized and Revised versions is unexampled in Scripture [must every unique statement of Scripture be abandoned then?] and what is more,.... it is peculiarly embarrassing for the Christian scholar." (Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,p.309). But who are these Christian scholars? the wine-bibbing, necromancing Westcott and Hort were two of them. If you know of a Christian scholar not marked by rationalism, I would like to know his name. Kelly went on to say that if the true text is as it appears in the Received Text, we must translate it as in the AV. Well that is exactly how it is. Only a few perverted manuscripts change it. It is indeed the true text.
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. These words, as they appear in the AV Bible have brought comfort to myriads of believers. The peace spoken of is the present possession of every soul justified by faith, i.e. of every born again believer. But the RV would rob us of this peace, making it a thing to be striven for, even after conversion, by altering the reading to therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God. But our peace has been secured on the cross once and for all.
Metzger (whose feminized NRSV has now hit the market) would have us to believe that the 'error' came about and was perpetuated in the vast majority of manuscripts because scribes, copying by dictation, misheard a word. However the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus scribes managed to hear correctly. If you believe that you really will believe anything.
so many of us as were baptized Some have inferred from these verses that some believers were not baptized. As English is no longer taught we can understand the confusion of some today. They do not realise that a relative pronoun would be needed to produce this interpretation, and the verse would read "as many of us as were baptized". Inn this context "so many" means whosoever. Anybody at all who was baptized into Jesus Christ was thereby baptized into His death. The verse is not speaking of water-baptism, a view which supports the difficulty that some have with the verse, but with a spiritual experience. If it were water-baptism in view, then I didn't begin to walk in newness of life until some time after I was born again. I believe that Romans 6 gives us the doctrinal import of what happens at conversion, which is then publicly proclaimed in the act of water-baptism.
Scripture does not recognise unbaptized believers. The NT teaching demands total immersion upon confession of faith.
So many of us as were baptized. It has been claimed that these words in the AV Bible suggest that some believers were not baptized, As English is no longer taught we can understand this misunderstanding of the plain word of God. It is not realized that a relative pronoun would be needed to produce this suggested interpretation, and the verse would read "as many of us as were baptized". In the context of the passage, "so" means "whosoever". Anybody at all who was baptized into Jesus Christ
The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. Critics tell us it was never a cross but a stake. If no cross then Christ was not crucified. The Hebrews had no word for cross. thar barbaric form of punishment being foreign to them. thus Peter (Acts.5:30. 10:39) and Paul (Acts.13:29, Gal.3:13) preaching to the Jews and speaking of Christ on the tree had in mind the words of Deut.21:23, He that is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God. the word for tree in the NT may also be translated stave, but it is never translated cross. The word used for cross is never translated any other way, i.e. never spoken of as a stave. The symbol of the cross was well enough known even in pre-Christian times.
Romans 8:1 (see Waymarks No.18)
It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. "Not so", say the critics, "there is nothing wrong with our preaching! It is the message itself that must be defective." So they mutilate these verses to read, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.... God was pleased though the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe". By this they ignore the context and the use of the Greek word logos For ye are enriched by him in all utterance (logos) ....(v.5). The Corinthians were gifted in their preaching. But, Paul said that his preaching was not with wisdom of words (logos) i.e. not with clever speech lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He would use the foolishness of preaching, simply declaring what /god had done on sending His Son to die on the cross for our sins, rather than to rely on eloquence, rhetoric, intellectual debate etc. which might impress many and induce false professions of salvation. the modernists state that it is the cross of Christ which is foolishness in v.21, because that is what is being preached. That is no less than a foul and wicked blasphemy. So why do they have "your speaking" for logos in v.5? they cannot be consistent even in the same chapter.
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. We are told that this is a misleading translation because the basic meaning of a castaway refers to a shipwrecked mariner. That meaning was unknown before 1799 AD and our English Bible was produced in 1611 AD. A person "castaway" is totally rejected. ("Rubbished" in the modern jargon). So why describe the Holy Bible as misleading? "We didn't" insist the critics, "it is this particular version of the Bible that is misleading in so many places, and a version of the Bible is not the true original Bible". Then where is the real Bible? Now they tell me that it doesn't exist. It never did exist because the writings that were collected into one volume at the beginning of the second century AD were only copies of the original scattered manuscripts. The human race has never been in possession of a pure Holy Bible according to our modern critics. But if a Bible did exist at the beginning of church history then we may be sure that God would have had no difficulty in preserving it for 2000 years. We may be sure, however, that the words quoted at the head of this paragraph are words of Scripture, and are quoted from the Holy Bible. If anything is lost in translation, of the word of God, it would mean that almost the whole human race was cast away at Babel. God, Who according to the critics, spoke only Hebrew and Greek, put the human race out of touch there at Babel. He can therefore no longer communicate effectively with anyone who cannot speak His language. Yes, some of our brethren really do believe that. They have told me it is necessary to understand Greek an Hebrew to have a proper grasp of Scripture (which doesn't exist according to them). Well, let them know that MY God speaks English and has given me a Holy Bible which is no less inspired and no less accurate than anything ever written in Hebrew and Greek. That Bible is known as the Authorized Bible.
Vine in his dictionary explains castaway as meaning "rejected, i.e. disapproved, and so rejected from present testimony, with loss of future reward". In other words, if a person has nothing about him that speaks of Christ, and gives no evidence of Christian discipline in his life but just "claims" that he is in the race, he will get to heaven but have no reward when he gets there. Vine thinks that the passage refers to the Judgment Seat of Christ. But note that the castaway becomes such at the end of the race, not during it. It is then that he is rejected, when the race is over. No Scripture teaches the rejection of a person at the Judgment Seat (don't confuse this with the Great White Throne judgment). But this verse teaches the rejection of a person. So what Paul is saying is that he practised what he preached. It is possible for some to preach the Christian life to others but not to live it themselves which would be hypocritical. Such persons would be without eternal life. We fear that there are now those among us who preach the gospel or a form of it while they themselves are not saved. Be warned says the Apostle, there was a mixed multitude in an earlier day and all but two of them perished in the wilderness. God was not pleased with them. So let us be Bible believers, and accept the solemn admonitions of Scripture. The person who does not accept the rigours of the Christian life, though making a profession of it, is a reprobate. All true believers are winners.All who love His appearing receive the crown of righteousness. There is no question of their being saved throughout the race only to be lost at the end of it. The believer heeds the admonitions of Scripture while the reprobate ignores them.
Take,eat, this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. The word 'broken' is omitted in the RV, but has the support of the majority of the Byzantine mss. and lectionary copies. It is also in the Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writings of some of the early fathers. The Codex Siniaticus is one of the few mss, omitting the word, but even this has been altered by a corrector to include it.
In this there is " no contradiction and no departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of the Passover Lamb were not to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken. The body of the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed, and when it was skinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken, His body was broken when the crown of thorns broke the flesh of His brow, when the scourging broke the flesh of His body, when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and feet, and when the spear broke the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover symbolism in that His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 - He was wounded for our transgressions." Quoted from TBS. Leaflet No.65.
2 Corinthians 2:17 (see Waymarks No.16)
2 Corinthians 3:12,13
Seeing then that we have such hope,we use great plainness of speech. And not as Moses.... Some, who dislike great plainness of speech, think that the "hope" just gave Paul courage in his preaching. Seeing that he is contrasting his preaching to that of Moses, this interpretation implies that Moses was cowardly. The contrast, however, is between what is open and that which was hidden. The moral fibre of the Lord's servants has nothing to do with the subject. The AV translators were well aware that the word "boldness" might have been used instead of "plainness". This is why they placed that alternative in the margin. But modern students fail to grasp that boldness has several meanings; courage, well-marked, clear, etc. If we put it into bold print it becomes plain enough. We are not using courageous print! So let the context decide it. Preachers who like to change the words of Scripture confuse the teaching of Scripture by their actions. Let us all continue to use great plainness of speech in our preaching.
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us toChrist. Naughty pupils do not like schoolmasters so out goes the word from modern versions. The Greek word is paidagogos which gives us the English word pedagogue, which in our modern Oxford dictionary is defined as "schoolmaster". We are told that the pedagogos was a slave responsible for the moral and physical well-being of the child and would lead him to and from school. J Hunter thought that "a strict governess" to be a suitable translation, thus introducing a sex change. (What the Bible Teaches; 1983 Vol?, p.54). Commentators deny the sense of teaching in the word, preferring to rely on "classical" usages of the word, or on the presumesd practices of the Roman slave trade. Why not allow the Holy Spirit to interpret according to the context? Vine tells us that where paidagogos is translated "instructers", 1 Cor.4:15, it should read "pastors". But surely even pastors teach in caring for the flock.
Believing Bible study must begin with what we find written on the sacred page. We are not free to form our own opinions and then to look for the version that best expresses them. If we do not undeerstand a word, phrase, or passage, then we wait on the Lord until the Holy Spirit illumines the page. We do not adjust the text. that is what modern veersionism is all about. The law was a scholmaster, teaching the Israelite that he had a special relationship with God, separate from the ungodly nations surrounding him; that approach to God was on ceremonial grounds and the law taught him (if he would only listen) that he was a sinner. It was "till the seed should come", so bringing him to Christ.
Ephesians 1:18 (see Waymarks No.16)
Ephesians 4:22 (see Waymarks No.17)
1 Timothy 1:17 (see Waymarks No.19)
1 Timothy 3:16
God was manifest in the flesh. All believers ought to be aware that "He who was manifest in the flesh" is a spurious reading. Yet we find this being presented as "perhaps better" in a Christian magazine freely circulated among us. One dislikes being for ever critical but when our brethren set themselves up as critics of the text they must not complain at some return. the traditional reading is not peculiar to the AV Bible. It is found in Tyndale's translation, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible. "God" is also found in the major European Bibles of Diotati (Italian), Osterwald (French), Valera (Spanish), Luther (German), Almeida (Portuguese), and many others. The vast majority of existing Greek mss. have the word for God. The ancient versions likewise, e.g. Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Gothic, and more besides. Several of the Fathers refer to God manifest in the flesh. A few mss. have the equivalent of "who" or "which". The Codex Alexandricus, held in the British Museum, appears to have been altered at this verse but the scholars who were able to examine it were in agreement that the original text read THEOS, agreeing with the Received Text, God was manifest in the flesh. (See TBS leaflet No.103).
Why do we read then in Present Truth, N0.90, p.93, "Microscopic examination of the earliest texts were universally in favour of the [who] reading". (my italics). It appears that the proven God-breathed words God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit upset the theology of some. The writer goes on to ask "How do we understand God justified in spirit?" (sic). To believe that the actual text of Scripture depends on our understanding of it is rationalism. Has one never read John 1:32-34? I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.... and I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God. Not the title Christ, nor the Lamb of God, but that which speaks of His full and absolute Godhood, is used by John, by which he gave public testimony to this fact, that God was now manifest in the flesh, justified as such by the Holy Spirit.
Our writer goes on, "why is there little evidence of this Scripture [God was....] being used in the controversies of the early centuries.... Surely this Scripture would have been an end to all argument". To which the answer may be given,- why do not the modern counterparts, Unitarians, RC's, JW's of those early heretics slink away when confronted with the truth? Because they reject the truth out of hand, preferring their unitarian NIV bibles etc.
One other thing our writer cannot understand is "God received up in glory". Christ yes, he says, but God no. He hastens to assure us that he does not doubt the divinity of Christ, but we are beginning to wonder. The old lie is that Christ ceased to be possessed of deity at the cross. But, But He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, Mark 16:19. Who is this that Mark speaks of? Christ, certainly, but we have further titles of deity given - The LORD said unto my Lord (Adon=Sovereign God), sit thou at my right hand. Psalm 110:1. How can He be God manifested in the flesh during His life here, God in exaltation at the right hand of the Father, but not God during His ascension?
2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Timothy did not have access to the original manuscripts. He had to rely on copies. But, says the Apostle, they are nevertheless Holy Scriptures. Then he went on immediately to say that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is, the copies (of copies of copies....) handed down to Timothy were THE SCRIPTURES and were therefore HOLY. One imperfection would make them unholy. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Or does one think it possible to live a holy life as long as one's sins are neither too great nor too many?
Knowing the Holy Scriptures was Timothy's safeguard against evil men and remains the 20th Century believer's defence in these perilous times. "No, not perilous " says Darby, "just difficult. So Darby removes the Holy Scriptures and gives Timothy sacred letters instead. The NASV would prefer Timothy to know the sacred writings. All revisionists hate the idea of believers being in possession of the Holy Scriptures. "Sacred" is a Romish word and does not translate any Greek word found in the NT, and "writings" may be produced by anybody.
It is commonly acknowledged that we are in the last days. Therefore we expect the Holy Scriptures to come under their fiercest attack. Satan, the Master Revisionist, is determined to destroy the faith of many. He does so by weakening the believer's confidence in a God given, Spirit preserved, 100% perfect (howls of mirth from the mockers) Holy Bible. Satan uses men of repute in his evil work; chief men among the brethren. Preparations for our perilous times were accelerated at the end of the 19th Century by Westcott and Hort. Satan's work has been flourishing in the last half of the20th Century. In 1940 Vine's Expository Dictionary was published. One does not wish to decry the many helps now available for the study of Scripture, and the motives of men such as Vine are not in question in their desire to encourage a true knowledge of the word. But it has not happened. Believers hardly read the Bible now, let alone study it. The reason is plain enough for this neglect. They are repeatedly being told that the Bible is defective in 1000's of places.
We read the foreword to Vine's Dictionary and find this:- "But the fact remains that they who are entirely dependent upon a Version must miss very much of the glory and richness of these (NT) Writings." What an ignorant lie! It is a hellish lie. We do not hesitate to call it that. Note that the NT is reduced to mere writings and that no version can be Scripture. Satan has used Vine to cause believers to think that they cannot understand the Bible without his dictionary. Vine was himself dependent upon these apostate scholars, as the foreword goes on to tell us, "These works [of Grimm-Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur] provide the lexical skeleton. Mr Vine's work clothes that skeleton with the flesh and sinews of living exposition.... doing for the non-specialist what is being done for the specialist by Kittel's Theological Dictionary to the NT.
Thayer was a Unitatian. Kittel was a Nazi war criminal. None of these was a believer. I am not making a judgment. You can check these things out for yourself.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable.... The word "inspiration" is the translation of the Greek word theopnustos (from Theos=God; pneo= to blow), thus a translation "God-breathed" might seem reasonable. But the translators knew that to be inadequate, for some have taken that to mean "out-breathed". If the Scriptures were merely breathed out by God then they might well have been dissipated into the atmosphere for any to catch hold of them. But we are to understand that they were breathed IN. They were breathed into the men, that is, given by means of first breathing into the men who were to record each word of God, jot by jot, and tittle by tittle, so that all believers might know God's word.
So the word INspiration is used, which does not mean OUTspiration. It is derived from the Latin spiritus (=breathing). We are familiar with "aspire" (lit. to breathe towards), "conspire" (lit. to blow together), "expire" (lit. to breathe out or die).
Modern translations give "God-breathed" because they reject the doctrine of verbal inspiration whereby God imparted His words directly and personally syllable by syllable, word by word, jot by jot, to men of His own choosing, who then wrote them down entirely without error. Beware: IN does not mean OUT!
Of course, the GIVING of Scripture was a unique act of God. It did not need to be repeated. We do not believe, as some falsely charge us, that the AV was a separately inspired Book. But we can say as we read the Bible that we are reading the inspired word of God, because inspiration is not lost in translation. God's word is not confined to a particular language, as some are teaching today. Those holding that view must believe in an incompetent god, who having once spoken then finds himself powerless to have his words passed on faithfully to succeeding generations of differing tongues.
I believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture. I believe in the permanent preservation of that same Scripture. We have it in the Authorized Bible.
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. The Rheims version has "making purgation of sins", omitting by himself adapting Scripture to justify their blasphemous doctrine of purgatory. The NIV has "After he had provided purification for sins", so following the Romish tradition promulgated by W & H in the RV. We have heard this and other false Romish readings quoted publicly, making us think that perhaps there are Jesuit fifth-columnists operating among us. There are certain men crept in unawares, says Jude. We must not be deluded into thinking that in these days they have disappeared.
The AV reading is as usual well attested in ancient manuscripts. There are no reliable grounds for changing it.
Hebrews 9:27 (see Waymarks No.19)
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. We hear this statement, "The AV wrongly reads...." and we might think that we are being given the benefit of scholarly information. More often it is modernistic misinformation. An example lies before me; I quote, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators (Not 'whoremongers' as the AV wrongly reads).... ". John Spencer helped translate the book of Hebrews for the 1611 AV Bible. At 19 years of age he lectured in Greek at Oxford. Another translator was john Bois. By the age of 6 he could read and write Hebrew. Most of the translators were fluent in a number of languages besides Hebrew and Greek. I would like to know what are the linguistic abilities of our modern critics.
As for the AV rendering of 'pornos' translated 'whoremonger' in Heb.13:4, I look in my Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, 1805 edition, and read:- "pornos: an impure or unclean person of whatever kind". Reliable English dictionaries tell us that 'whoremonger' is in current usage, (i.e. not an archaic word) meaning an immoral person. The AV therefore rightly reads.
1John 2:2 (see Waymarks No.19)
1 John 3:1 (see Waymarks No.16)
I know thy works... Some of our brethren are teaching, concerning the saints at Smyrna, that the Lord did not know their works because, being under persecution, they had none.Thus the phrase must be omitted from Scripture. On what authority? On the authority of "most ancient translations" one preacher informs us. And they are...? He doesn't know, so we must supply him with his own ammunition against Holy Scripture. The mss that omit the phrase are 1. Alexandrinus, 2. Ephraemi, 3. St Petersburg, 4. #19, 5. #47, 6. Latin Vulgate, 7. Coptic Version, 8. AEthiopic Version, 9. Andreas (6th C.) 10. Primas (6th C.) 11. Bede, The Vaticanus omits the whole of Revelation.
There they are, all eleven of the so-called authorities. All of them seriously depraved (i.e. multitudes of errors in them) and only nos. 6,7,8, were translations anyway. The rest are Greek mss. And against those eleven the vast majority of mss, including remarkably, the perverted sister of Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus. So why do our own brethren serve up such nonsense? Because they blindly or wilfully follow the apostate critics of Scripture. Those earlier apostates who seized upon the omitting mss to produce their own Greek NT's were Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (who joined the "Brethren" for a while before he totally apostasized). Then followed Alford and Westcott & Hort.
Of course those saints at Smyrna had works. James assures us that faith without works is dead. One has told us "It is hardly conceivable that an assembly under such pressure would have much opportunity for Christian works, and so rightly those translations that omit this phrase would be correct". But if there were no works why ever were they being persecuted? Church history tells us that tribulation and persecution have always fanned faith and works. Standing for their truth is a work of God. The Lord had no criticisms to make of the church in Smyrna. It is a pity that our brethren have to.
So in the light of Rev. 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life... Those who omit I know thy works show themselves to be unconverted. God knew, when He first gave Scripture through the Spirit's inbreathing into is servants, that Satan would attack it. What a tragedy when Satan uses our own brethren to further his lies.
Blessed are they that do his commandments. This is changed to 'Blessed are they that wash their robes' in the RV and JND with virtually no textual authority. This rendering is used to support the Romish doctrine of the mass. The AV is not teaching salvation by works here but speaks of the blessedness of those already saved and living a life of obedience to Christ. Compare verses 12:17, 14:12 in Revelation. Also If ye love me, keep my commandments, Jn.14:15. Believers do keep His commandments.They know full well that they are not earning their salvation by their obedience, but demonstrating that they are already saved. The authority for the AV reading of this verse is found in the majority of mss, plus the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions etc. It is even found in the Vatican manuscript!
We note that those who hold to the "washing" version are very presumptious in that they think that they are capable of washing themselves. They ignore the present continuous tense of the verb. They will have to keep on washing, and never know whether they have washed themselves enough to merit salvation.
Prof. David Gooding writes, "And finally, in cases like this we can always consult the judgment of godly scholars. J.N.Darby, for instance, had no doubt about the matter. His translation reads 'Blessed are they that wash their robes...' and with him the vast majority of modern scholars would agree." The Word. Issue 41.
They would, wouldn't they?
Verses are being added regularly. Those not linked have appeared
in Waymarks No.s 1 to 15.
For questions relating to the manuscript evidence
of AV readings, Email me, Ron Smith, at