Monday, December 19, 2011

KJV Onlyism is Ridiculous

I have come to the conclusion that being King James Only is a ridiculous position.  I have been told this in past by several anti King James people and this position is asserted by those who don't have a stiff enough spine to actually say it.  But after much thinking and careful consideration (which included searching the scriptures), I have no doubt in my mind that I (and you if you are KJVO) hold a position that at the very least can rightly be called ridiculous.

I mean think about it: we believe that the King James is perfect, infallible, and THE final authority.  Some of us even believe that the AV is more authoritative than the Greek & Hebrew; which is even more ridiculous.  I have even heard it said by some KJV only people that the AV is the new Received Text; is that not ridiculous?  But then I started thinking (which is a dangerous thing sometimes):

  • I believe that a virgin gave birth to a baby
  • I believe that God spoke the heavens into existence
  • I believe that the Red Sea literally parted and a bunch of Jews walked through on dry ground
  • I believe that an ass spoke to a prophet
  • I believe that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh
  • I believe that one day I'm going to walk on streets of gold
  • I believe that one day Jesus Christ is coming back to the earth and will reign from a throne in Jerusalem (according to the USA now, this belief may even make you a terrorist)
  • I believe that Jesus Christ died, was buried, and rose again bodily on the third day
This is just a sampling of the ridiculous things I believe.  So if being KJVO is ridiculous: I'm okay with that.  Just add it to the list of ridiculous things I already believe.

The funny thing is, most of the anti-kjvo people (if they are actually saved) believe all these same ridiculous things.  Is it more ridiculous to believe in the virgin birth or that a Book could actually be perfect?  I'd say believing a virgin had a baby and that baby was God in the flesh is much more ridiculous.  And to believe that it isn't would be, well...ridiculous


Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Epistle to the Laodiceans

There is always much conversation from non-christians and even some Christians about the development of the canon of Holy Writ.  Which books, why, missing books, etc.  One of these famous epistles is Paul's to the Laodiceans.  There is even a fake epistle floating around the internet that even some Bible believers think may be the actual epistle Paul wrote.  However, there is one problem with this: did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans?

I say he didn't.  But I bet you are thinking of a verse in the book of Colossians that says he did.  Let's look at this verse and read it closely.

Colossians 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

Did you see that?  Read it slowly...Paul says the epistle FROM Laodicea.  Paul does not say he wrote an epistle TO the Laodiceans and that he wants the Colossians to read as it is normally interpreted.  Paul tells those at Colosse to read an epistle that is from Laodicea.  What epistle could Paul be talking about?  Is there an epistle FROM Laodicea?  Yes there is; and it's already in the canon of scripture.

If you have a King James Bible that the publishers haven't taken the liberty to change words, you will notice the post script at the end of 1 Timothy:

The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.

There you go: Paul's epistle from Laodicea is what we call 1 Timothy.  Now; did Paul write an epistle to the Laodiceans?  As I previously stated, I don't think so.  But if he did, there is not one verse of scripture to suggest such a thing.



Monday, November 21, 2011

Acts of the Apostates

The Acts of the Apostates 19:25 - 28
And Schaap said, brethren, ye know that by our Nicolaitan craft of correcting the King James Bible with pagan Greek definitions we have our wealth and power. All over ye see and hear that not only at HAC and BJU, but almost throughout the whole world this Riplinger and Ruckman and Grady and Gipp hath persuaded and turned many back to believing the King James Bible is the inspired and perfect word of God and that we be not the gods of interpretation. And not only that, but now Greekspeak and Nicolaitanism is in danger to be set at nought, and the Greek Texts should be despised which all the Catholics, Evangelicals and most Fundamentalists worship. And the Schaapettes were filled with wrath and with one shrill voice cried out, "Great are our Greek and Hebrew study tools!" 


Saturday, October 29, 2011

Fundamental Baptist Heritage

"Too bad some preachers haven't been as loyal to their fundamental Baptist heritage as they are to their favorite sports teams."

I read this tweet today and I had to laugh.  Quotes like these are so common from some of the outspoken KJVO, IFB, separated, blah blah blah pastors and preachers on Twitter.  And while I can appreciate their zeal for what they stand for, they really ought to learn to stand for whatever it is they want to stand for because it's right and not worry about "heritage" and "old paths."  They also ought to study history a little more.  You see "fundamental Baptist heritage"  was not KJVO by any stretch of the imagination: just read John R. Rice's book "Our God-Breathed Book" or look to see fundamentalist hero Curtis Hutson's name appear on the committee list of the New King James Bible.  Although these are just two individuals, they echo the sentiment of the movement.  That is why when Jack Schaap said his position on the KJV (which is that it is neither inspired or preserved, just the Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek) is the same has historic fundamentalism, he wasn't lying...for a change.

Here is exactly what fundamental Baptist heritage believed as written in a work titled "Doctrinal Non Issues in Historic Fundamentalism" by Rolland D. McCune and published by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

"Early fundamentalists did not champion a particular version of the Bible as their official version or elevate a particular codex, text type, or translation to the special status of being inspired or of being the very Word of God to the exclusion of all others. While the King James Version was used overwhelmingly in public, the American Standard Version (1901), for example, was widely assigned and used as a study Bible in fundamentalist schools and was used by many teachers in the classroom [in other words they were lying to their congregations]. Pastors, evangelists, and Bible teachers had no hesitation in recommending it for clarity of reading and understanding. Even the Revised Standard Version New Testament, in use from 1946 to 1952, before the Old Testament came out, was used, recommended, and even advertised for sale by some fundamentalists."

Don't be fooled to think that it is any different today.  KJVO fundamentalists (if they truly are) are the minority of that movement and they certainly don't speak for the "heritage" of the Baptist's that jumped onto this protestant movement.  The heritage that was started is still where the movement stands today; again, Jack Schaap was right.  And while I am glad that they stand for the right Book (publicly at least) here is what the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship (pillars of their movement) had to say at a recent annual meeting concerning the KJVO position:

"In a day when translations abound, fundamentalists must exercise careful discernment in both selection and rejection of translations.  Some professing [are they suggesting that REAL fundamentalists are not KJVO?] fundamentalists have wrongfully declared one translation to be the only inspired copy of God's Word in the English language and have sought to make this a test of fundamentalism.  Since no translation can genuinely claim what only may be said of the original, inspired writings, any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of fundamentalists must be rejected."

Are you a fundamentalist?  Is this your position?  If not then you do not hold to the heritage of fundamental Baptist's nor do you hold to the current position of the fundamental movement.  You are an individual; stand as such in the power of God and his might: which is in the Authorized Version, and not in a movement with a protestant brand name.  The King James Bible is 400 years old.  The fundamental movement is only about 1/4 of that age and Baptists have been part of it for less time than that.

But I guess, if you want to cling to a Bible-rejecting heritage you do have soul liberty.  Amen.


Friday, October 28, 2011

A Word On Music

Here is some interesting commentary from a brother and friend of mine on Facebook concerning the music preference (and it is mostly preference) issue.  He makes some good points. What say ye?

It has been said that all CCM is satanic, I disagree. A song, ANY SONG, is to be judged on it's own merits, not clumped up with a bunch of other songs. Let me just give you a short list of CCM songs:
Easter Song
He's Alive
Rise Again
To God Be The Glory
That is a very short list, so let me ask you, are those songs Satanic because they are CCM? Or should they be judged on their own merit. Should they be judged on what the belief of the writer is? You do know that almost all of the hymns in your hymnal were written by Calvinists or Arminians, don't you? Should we also get rid of those. There are songs in the hymnals I won't sing, due to doctrinal reasons, but I have judged the song individually, not thrown out the entire hymnal because I found an unscriptural song in it.
I have also seen that MOST of the people who are against CCM, say nothing about Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, or Bluegrass gospel, why is that? Could it be that it's because you like that kind of music, but don't like CCM music? Now to the actual meodies, I have heard it said that if it makes you want to tap your foot, it's wrong. So there goes half of the hymnals again. They say it's because of the beat, listen folks, if it doesn't have a beat it's not music. Even Gregorian Chants have a beat. Did you ever notice the numbers at the front of a hymn, that's the beat. Whether it's 3/4 or 4/4 or 2/4 etc. time. THen they will say you cannot have drums, ignoring the KJB when it uses the tabrets and tambrels in Psalms.
And I assume you know the same arguements were given for not using the Hymns in you hymnal when they came out, the Church of England and the Catholic church and the Presbyterian church all wanted only the Psalteries sung, they said the new hymns were of the devil to draw people away from true worship. Also you do know that many hymns music comes from old Shantys and folk songs, don't you? Cleanse Me is from a Maori Chant.
Now, let me be clear, you can dislike CCM if you want, but don't claim it is Of the devil. I myself prefer singing the old Hymns in Church, but that is my PREFERENCE.
All I ask is you be consistant, if CCM is wrong, then so is Southern Gospel, Country Gospel, and Bluegrass Gospel, then you need to get rid of all the songs written by Calvinists and Arminians. Be Consistant.


Monday, October 17, 2011

Ambassador Baptist College: KJVO?

Here is typical look at what a Psuedo-King James Only Baptist College (or even fundamental churches since they just copy statement of faiths) says when they want to look King James Only, while still sounding intellectual so they can attract students and make money (didn't the Bible have something to say about the love of money?).

We believe…

  • …that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments were “God-breathed,” or given by the inspiration of God, resulting in a product that was inerrant and infallible in the original autographs. (This sounds great except it says nothing.  So what if the originals were inerrant and infallible, you can't get them and neither can I since they no longer are in existence.  Furthermore, we have no idea if they were actually inerrant: can you be sure Paul's scribe didn't spell one word wrong in the original epistle to the Romans? Sounds silly to say, but if you can't PROVE the opposite then you honestly have to admit the possibility.  Not to mention the Neo term "God-breathed."  I'm no Th.D and I don't have an honorary doctorate from Hyles-Anderson so this may automatically disqualify my opinion, but I think I read back there in the Old Testament that the original 10 Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God.  Now, unless you think God breathes through his finger, you have a serious problem.  And if you do think God breathes through his finger, you have no business teaching in a "Bible" college.)
  • …that God has fulfilled His promise to preserve His Word for every generation of human history, through copies and translations of those original writings. (Again, another say nothing statement: preserve His Word?  The Word (capital W) is Jesus Christ: of course, they would know that if they read just 5 verses their King James Bible.)
  • …that inspiration applied only to the autographs, but that their words have been accurately retained through God’s preservation. (Typical statement made by silly fundamentalists and neos alike.  Of course if they'd bothered to look at the context of the passage one time the word inspiration appears in the New Testament, they would have noticed that Timothy is said to have known the "holy scriptures."  There's not a psuedo on the planet that believes Timothy had the originals in his possession at anytime so why would you ignore the clear context?  Furthermore the Book of Jeremiah that actually ended up in the canon of scripture is actually the third version of what was written by him and his scribe and the Book of Proverbs was put together partially from copies of Solomon's writing's copied out by Hezekiah's men.  Not to mention, if they were Bible believer's they would know what the law of first mention was; and knowing that they would know that the first mention of "inspiration" is in the Book of Job and has absolutely nothing to do with scripture, but rather how God imparts understanding to man.  But you'd only know this if you actually read your Bible; and who does that these days?)
  • …that God has preserved His Word in the Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus Greek Text of the New Testament. (Once again the capital W: seriously, can't they read 5 verses of scripture?  That's great that there are some Hebrew and Greek manuscripts left in world: too bad nobody at this college or any of their students are part of the less than 1% of the population of the world that actually speak these languages.  Not to mention, Koine Greek (of which nobody can actually prove was the original language of the NT) has been dead for over 1500 years).
  • …that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available, not only because it is an excellent translation, but because it is a translation of the best Hebrew and Greek texts. (Great statement with no conviction.  Who says the AV is the best translation?  You; ambassador college?  And you are who?  Fundamentalist founder C.I. Scofield didn't think so.  The "Captain" John R. Rice didn't think so.  Curtis Hutson didn't think so for a large part of his ministry. So why is your preference superior to their preference and opinion?  Any scripture to back up your preference? I thought not.)
  • …that consistency in position demands that we use only the above-mentioned Hebrew and Greek texts and the KJV translation in our classrooms and chapel services. (What: did you just say your position is consistent?  What happens when the Hebrew and Greek conflicts with the AV?  And don't be fooled to think that they don't.  The "TR" used in most Bible colleges is Scrivener's text put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  This text was not in existence at the time the AV1611 was translated.  It was created by Scrivener by taking the AV New Testament and back translating it into Greek.  Yes you read that right: Ambassador's Greek authority over the KJV came from the KJV itself.  However, Scrivener was also on the committee of Wescott & Hort, so naturally being the "man of Gaaaaawd" that he was, he "corrected" the back translated Greek from the "errors" of the KJV translators.  So, as always was, there is no Greek text that has ever existed that reads exactly like the KJV.  So just what is their final authority and what are they teaching the next generation of preachers is their final authority?  Well, naturally it's whatever the baptist pope in their classroom says and therefore they should repeat in the pulpit.  This is why 99% of preachers HAVE to mention something about the meanings of Agape and Phileo when they preach from John 21.  But naturally, being the biblically illiterate amateur Greek scholars that they are, they forgot that God the Father has phileo love for Jesus Christ in John 5:20; they forgot that Jesus has only phileo love for the believer in John 16:27; and that Jesus only had phileo love for Lazarus in John 11:3.  But who wants to be a dumb King James Bible believer these days and actually believe what the text says: "Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?"  "The third time" could only be the right rendering if all three questions actually meant the same thing.  But that's too simple and doesn't sound intellectual so it can't be right.  Plus, if you actually believe the text of the AV "as is" you might get labeled a "Ruckmanite" and you don't want to be grouped in with a divorced pastor do you (hide your Scofield Bible at this time as not to seem like a hypocrite)?)


Friday, October 14, 2011

Dr. James Lince on Sermon Preparation

"Textual, topical, or word studies are the common result whenever the deductive approach to sermon preparation is used.

"Many, if not most [pastors], prefer to read the Bible and prepare their sermons with their own convictions already in mind.  All they ever need to prepare a message is a scriptural text that appears to support their own personal convictions.  Unfortunately, their convictions are usually nothing more than religious ideas flying around their minds looking for a place to land.  So they are forced to find a verse to light on just to prove that they have a biblical basis for what they are preaching.

"Many preachers choose to preach topical sermons because they do not require any real effort to dig down into the text for all the hidden insights - the golden nuggets of truth that are there for the picking.  It is much easier to do a broad overview of some topic and come up with a basic outline that restates a generally known biblical truth...This is what I call quick and easy, in other words, lazy preaching...Consequently, many of tghe brethren have been living on stale bread for years now because their pastors have only used textual, topical, and word studies as a basis for their preaching..."


Thursday, September 29, 2011

Pastor Peacock on Preaching & Spirituality

The following is an excerpt taken from a sermon titled : Love The Bible.

"The Southern Baptists out preach Independent Baptists when it comes to exposition of scripture.  Independent Baptists are real bad about take verse...and all they do is preach: don't touch, don't taste, don't handle, get a haircut, wear the right clothes, make sure you don't wear this, make sure you do wear that, and all that other kinda junk.  And then turn people into a bunch of cottonpickin' Pharisees...some of you set yourself up as the standard for how everybody ought to live and you come in here and you're looking for everybody who's not dressed like you are, and don't have their kids like your kids.  That brings a rotten spirit with it.  You think that's spirituality?  That's not spirituality; not when you wear it as a badge of honor.  It's not spirituality when you put those clothes on for a job interview.  You're putting it on because you want the job.  You're trying to show them you're not what you really are."


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Arthur Pink Is Right!

I'm no Calvinist; hyper or traditional.  But I'm also not as self-righteous as most Independent Baptist pastors who act like the only people God ever used for the cause of Christ in the history of Christianity were people who believed just like them.  That being said, Christians are to recognize, yea even SEEK the truth and think on those things as the scripture saith in Philippians 4:8 (notice Paul, by the Holy Ghost, does not preference it by saying "think on these things if they are said by someone from your alma mater, camp, or who agrees w/ all your convictions.)

The following is a 110% true statement made by Pink commenting on John 8:28 "as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things,":

"This discourse He had delivered originated not in His own mind.  His doctrine came from the One who sent Him.  It was the same with the apostle Paul.  Hear him as he says to the Galatians, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1:11,12).  And these things, dear brethren are recorded for our learning.  No one has to take a course in any Bible School in order to gain a knowledge and insight of the Scriptures.  The man most used of God last century - Mr. C.H. Spurgeon - was a graduate of no Bible Institute!  We do not say that God has not used the Bible schools to help many who have gone there; we do not say there may not be such which He is so using today.  But what we do say is, that such schools are not an imperative necessity.  You have the same Bible [KJV] in hand that they have; you have the same Holy Spirit to guide you  into all truth.  God may be pleased to use human instruments in instructing and enlightening you, or He may give you the far greater honor and privilege of teaching you directly.  That is for you to ascertain.  Your first duty is to humbly and diligently look to HIM, wait on Him for guidance, seek His will, and the sure promise is, "The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way" (Psalm 25:9).

To this I say: Amen , Amen, Amen!


Wednesday, September 21, 2011

What Are You Waiting For?

Acts 9:19-20 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

If you understand dispensational truth, you understand that Paul is the pattern that the New Testament believer is to follow (1 Cor. 4:16; 1 Cor. 11:1).  Paul began preaching immediately after he was saved; which most of us know.  But what is more important is what the Bible doesn't say about Paul's (or still Saul in this case) beginning ministry.  Notice, Paul - the ex-murderer and blasphemer - begins preaching and he hasn't: been ordained, been to Bible college, been approved by an elder w/ an honorary doctorate, received a license to preach, or completed the new members class.

Paul simply and immediately went and preached what he knew: " the Son of God."  Preach what you know.  God isn't looking for professional Christians: he's looking for willing servants to follow Paul's example. 

So...what are you waiting for?


Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Bible or The Home? Ruckman or Rice?

A couple weeks ago, I posed a question asking if the Bible or the home was more important.  As you can probably guess, 100% of the responses said the Bible was more important.  Of the responses that qualified the answer, all of them centered around the fact that without the Bible, you can't have a proper home.  To which I say Amen, Amen, Amen!  With all this in mind, here is what should be a sobering take (for some) from Dr. Grady from Given By Inspiration.

     "When it comes to Dr. Peter Ruckman, the 'brethren' are at the top of their game with hypocrisy and inconsistency.  There is no escaping this reality, as it [the name Ruckman] constitutes the 800-pound gorilla in the room that will not go away; for no one is talking about wearing '100% for Ruckman' buttons (as with the '100% for Hyles' buffoonery of the 1990s).  What I do insist on discussing is basic Christian ethics as defined by Scriptures, such as: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just...think on these things" (Philippians 4:8); "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine " (1 Timothy 5:17).

     At the end of the day, Dr. John R. Rice was wrong on the Bible, but right on the home; Dr. Peter S. Ruckman was right on the Bible, but wrong on the home...If fundamentalists can give Dr. Rice a pass for recommending the ASV while continuing to promote everything else he has in print, why can't Dr. Ruckman be given the same grace?  Are we to conclude that being a right husband is more important than contending for the right Bible?"


Wednesday, June 15, 2011

I Am A Liberal Compromiser

There.  I finally admitted it; I'm letting my true colors shine forth for all to see.  I decided to come clean and let you all know I am a liberal compromiser.  Now you might be a bit confused having read some of my previous posts, but I will explain.  According to Mr. Josh Owens (an Independent Fundamental Baptist preacher from Summerville, GA) I am a liberal compromiser because, "If you're not IFB, then you're a liberal compromiser!"  Instead of acting like a Christian and following what Christ said in John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment ", he chose rather to act like Diotrephes, "who loveth to have the preeminence among them (that is to say IFB have the preeminence among the Baptist brethren and of course over non-Baptists)...prating against us (non-IFB & IFB that doesn't meet his criteria) with malicious words (automatically labeling the aforementioned groups as liberals and compromisers, of course, without saying what was compromised)."

But as Solomon said, "there is no new thing under the sun  " this is not new either.  Paul wrote about artificial divisions in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 & in 2 Timothy 14 where he instructed Timothy, "strive not about words to profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."  You see this foolishness subverts hearers and creates divisions based upon three letters of the alphabet which are apparently more important than actually asking a person what they believe.  But that's okay, I'll proudly be a liberal compromiser and keep hanging out with liberal compromisers like the ones I was with at the King James 400 Anniversary conference at Hope Baptist Church in Toledo.  You know liberal compromisers like Sam Gipp and Bill Grady and Mickey Carter; the people whose faces appear in the dictionary next to the definitions of liberal and compromise.

So now that I feel liberated (pun intended) and have one less imbecile to respond to on Twitter, wouldn't you like to know what a liberal compromiser like me believes?  Let me go outside and see which way the wind is blowing and I'll tell you. Be right back...


Friday, May 13, 2011

Quotes From Bible Belivers

Quotes from Billy Sunday in Heroes of the Faith series on Billy Sunday

“I want people to know what I mean, and that is why I try to get down to where they live.  What do I care if some juff-eyed dainty little dibbly-dibbly goes tibbly-tibbly around because I use plain Anglo-Saxon words?”  Billy thundered and whispered, roared and joked until more sedate clergy demanded that he “smooth down” his abrasive style.

“BLAH” to the liberal theologians and empty-headed intellectuals!

“Let me tell these loud-mouthed, big vocabulary, foreign-lingo slinging, quack-theory preaching bolsheviki in the pulpits and colleges that I’ll put what I preach to the test any time against what they preach!”

From Life and Sayings of Sam P. Jones

“I’d rather have to learn my A, B, C’s in heaven than to know Greek in hell.”

“He [Sam Jones] took the Bible as his authority.  He preached it just as he found it.  He had no patience with higher criticism.  No evangelist has any business with such a Bible.  Without the utmost faith in the simple word of God, he might preach earnestly and eloquently, but could not produce conviction.  He took the Book just as he found it.

A higher critic said to him once: ‘Mr. Jones, you don’t believe the Bible just as it is, do you?’  His reply was: ‘You fool you, of course I do; how could I believe it as it ain’t?’”


Friday, April 29, 2011

Jesus is the Amen: An English Nugget

In Revelation 3:14 the Lord Jesus, speaking to the church of the Laodiceans says: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness..."  The word Amen means true or faithful.  Jesus IS the Amen because he IS the truth (John 14:6), and he IS the faithful witness (Rev 1:5, 3:14).

Also notice this verse appears as the opening to the Lord's epistle to the church of the Laodiceans.  This is the church that is "lukewarm."  This is the church that takes the Lord Jesus out of his own church: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

It is no irony that it is in this final church age that we see the bible perversions mounting higher than Mount Everest.  And in a touching note, following the heretics Wescott & Hort, the modern perversions produced in the last days of the church have removed the Amen, the Lord Jesus Christ, from the last verse of the book that prophesies of the times of their operation: 2 Timothy 4:22.

KJV: The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.
NIV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NIV 2011: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.
ASV: The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.
ESV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
HCSB: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you!
NASV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
RSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NRSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
MSG: God be with you. Grace be with you.


Sunday, April 24, 2011

The Power of Easter

As I was up early this morning reading over the resurrection story in the four Gospels, and reflecting on what it has meant in my life personally, and my wife's life as an ex-'religious' Roman Catholic.  And more than anything, I am thankful that God in is infinite wisdom saw fit to give us a Bible so that we could know the truth, simplicity, and manifold power of the Gospel through the holy scriptures (2 Tim 3:15).  Given all that we have written this week concerning the true meaning of Easter, one verse really stood out to me this morning, Mark 16:2:

Mark 16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 

I am glad the Son arose in my heart and my wife's heart and that the power of His resurrection is still available to the world today in Holy Bible.

Happy Easter!


Saturday, April 23, 2011

Happy Easter!

In this concluding post about Easter, let me be brief and say I hope you have learned something about the Biblical and historical truth concerning the English word Easter, its context and meaning.  And whether you decide to "celebrate" Easter or not is entirely up to given the liberty that we have.

But as for me and my house, tomorrow is Easter and not just resurrection Sunday.  For if Jesus was risen and that's where the story ends, then what of our blessed hope?  What of our return to Earth with Him to reign 1000 years?  What of the promise of new heavens and new earth?  Easter symbolizes all of these things and I am so unworthy to partake in any of it, but I'm glad he allowed me to through his mercy and grace.

Happy Easter!


Friday, April 22, 2011

Easter Q & A

I received a question from one of the brethren regarding the previous post, and it was very good.  So I will post and answer it here.

Question: Why would the original context of that word encompass the rapture/second coming of Christ?

Answer:  I don't have a dogmatic answer for this question, but I believe it centers around the Lord's Supper.  While we all (who celebrate the Lord's Supper properly) know that it is remembrance of the Lord's body and blood given for us at Calvary, I feel, an often missed topic that doesn't get discussed hardly ever, if ever (I have never seen it discussed during a Lord's Supper service in the Baptist churches I have been a member of).

1 Corinthians 11:26  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Part of the reason for celebrating the Lord's Supper is to show His death until he comes again; the 2nd coming is an integral part of the entire Easter meaning.  This means the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and rapture/2nd Advent are all interconnected.  Brings a new outlook to the Easter celebration and what should be at each Lord's Supper service where our congregations meet.


Quit Greek, Learn English: Etymology 101

With the modern onslaught started by the Papists to learn the "original languages" in order to get the "full" meaning of scripture (of course this only applies to the New Testament), even so-called "Bible-believers" have embarked on this journey to learn the language that has produced more heresy than all the Pope's combined.  But while spending pointless hours to learn a language that no person on earth currently speaks and hasn't spoken in 1500+ years, they have neglected studying and mastering their native tongue; and in most cases that tongue is English.

With this in mind we come to the English word Easter.  This word, as INVENTED by Tyndale, was originally spelled Ester.  This corresponds perfectly to one of English's root languages: German.  The German equivalent is Ostern.  The 'est' in Tyndale's ester comes from the Germanic 'ost' which guessed it, EAST or as Tyndale spelled it est.  The German word for Easter, Ostern is derived from the Teutonic word auferstehen which means resurrection.  What is the significance of the east (est & ost) and the resurrection?  The Teutonic word that became German then became English was not only associated with the rising of the Lord Jesus Christ from the tomb, but His ascension, and our future resurrection and His second coming.  Clearly Tyndale and Luther knew something about the scriptures and language that Hislop and all those that parrot his myth don't know: there is a significance between east and the son rising and the 2nd coming of The Word Of God.

Malachi 4:1-2  For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.  (2)  But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Matthew 24:27  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

2 Peter 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (and what is this "day star?" Genesis 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day... And so the circle closes it's reference back at Malachi 4:1-2).

As we look closer to the English word, we should break it down into two parts: East & er.  When we look at English grammar we come to find that the suffix 'er', coming from its Germanic roots, is most commonly used in the formation of nouns designating persons from objects of their occupation or from their place of origin.  It can also serve as the English formative of nouns as it can be attached to verbs of any origin.

This means if the word East is a noun, an er ending would make the word mean one whose origins are from the East.  If the word East is a verb, then adding an er ending would make the word a noun and mean one who is coming from the East.  Doesn't this sound a lot like the few verses we just referenced?  I believe it does.

It also brings us back full circle to the Teutonic word 'auferstehen' and its full meaning encompassing the not just the resurrection from the tomb, but the celebration of the consummation of the full meaning of the Lord's rising from the dead.


Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Pascha, Passover & Easter

As King James Bible believers we know the debate from ‘TR Men’, Pseudo King James Onlites and bible agnostics about the word Easter centers on the underlying Greek word Pascha.  As we stated in a previous post in this Easter series, not only did the word Pascha mean Easter in English before it meant Passover, but Easter (then spelled ester) was used every place in the New Testament that is now rendered Passover.  This lack of study into the true history of the word has led many a ‘good’ Christian to simply parrot the lie that Easter is Ishtar started by Bible corrector Alexander Hislop.

Since the AV1611 is our only authority we only need to heed the spiritual words of this Book (John 6:63) and compare spiritual things with spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:13); that is compare scripture with scripture.  The Greek word in question is translated in 26 verses in the New Testament: 1 verse as Easter and 25 verses as Passover.  Read the following verses and see what you notice about the verses that say Passover as compared to the verse that says Easter.

(Matthew 26:2)  Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

(Matthew 26:17)  Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

(Matthew 26:18)  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

(Matthew 26:19)  And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

(Mark 14:1)  After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.

(Mark 14:12)  And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

(Mark 14:14)  And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

(Mark 14:16)  And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

(Luke 2:41)  Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

(Luke 22:1)  Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

(Luke 22:7)  Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.

(Luke 22:8)  And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

(Luke 22:11)  And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

(Luke 22:13)  And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.

(Luke 22:15)  And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

(John 2:13)  And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

(John 2:23)  Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

(John 6:4)  And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

(John 11:55)  And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

(John 12:1)  Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.

(John 13:1)  Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

(John 18:28)  Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

(John 18:39)  But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?

(John 19:14)  And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

(1 Corinthians 5:7)  Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

(Hebrews 11:28)  Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

(Acts 12:4)  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Notice anything peculiar about the verses?  Ask yourself a question: is the Jewish Passover still a valid feast/celebration?  No.  The Passover feast, as we know, was a shadow or type of the perfect Passover, the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.  Obviously, God has closed the Book on the Jew and they are in partial blindness (Rom. 11:25) as of right now to this fact.  However, with THE Passover was fulfilled on the cross by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, this makes the Old Testament Jewish Passover feast of none effect or vain.  Therefore, because it has been fulfilled it should have a new name since technically it doesn't exist anymore, shouldn’t it?

Now look back at the previous verses:  Notice that Acts 12:4 is the only time in the New Testament that the word Pascha is referred to in a post-resurrection context.  This fact would demand that Passover be called something else since it is technically a vain celebration by the Jews; hence the English rendering Easter (ester).


Tuesday, April 19, 2011

What Was Herod Celebrating? Acts 12:4

My dad taught me that when reading the Bible pay attention to what it says; but equally, and in some cases, more importantly, pay attention to what it doesn't say.  This can be a rather tricky statement, but a very wise and common sense one as well.  So let's apply this to the verse that contains the much debated word Easter.  Keep in mind, we have all been taught that Easter is the correct word because Herod was celebrating his pagan/Easter feast.  Let's read this verse carefully.

Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Notice carefully what this verse DOES NOT say: it does not say Herod was celebrating anything.  It simply states that he was going to bring Peter to the Jews after this thing rendered Easter in our English Bible.  Here is a modern day example of this verse: Pretend you were married last Saturday, then left on your honeymoon on Sunday and will return home this coming Saturday.  Let's also pretend you and I are business partners and I have some business to discuss with you.  It could be then said that I am intending after the honeymoon to discuss the business item with you.  Question: does this mean I am celebrating the honeymoon?  Of course not.  All the statement says is that I am waiting until after a particular time to speak to you; this is the same thing Acts 12:4 says.

If we compare scripture with scripture we know that the Jewish religious leaders were married with the Roman government (John 19:15).  We know from the crucifixion that they have a custom to release a prisoner to the Jews (John 18:39).  We also know that the Roman government 'respected' the Jewish celebration of days as witnessed by their listening to the Jews concerning leaving bodies on the cross on the Sabbath in preparation for the Passover (John 19:31).  When we take all of this into consideration, we can ask the question "Would Herod be willing to keep Peter in prison until after the Jews finished their feast during the days of unleavened bread?"  The answer is yes.

So ask yourself: was Herod waiting until after his party, or the Jews party?  Clearly from scripture, the Jews party.


Straight From the Horses Mouth

We've all heard the saying "get it straight from the the horses mouth."  This is always the best method for getting the truth in any matter in which you have a question.  We know this is true because of that telephone game we all played; by the time the line got to the last person in the class it wasn't even close to what was originally said.

This is what we will attempt to do as best we can concerning this Easter bit.  The English word Easter is not of pagan origin and is most certainly not some transliteration of Ishtar.  The English word Easter was invented by William Tyndale.  Yes you read that right: it was INVENTED by William Tyndale.  If you are reading this, I am going to assume you are a King James Bible believer.  And if this is true, than you more than likely know something about him and how God mightily used him in the purification process of the English scriptures.  This is not to say Tyndale was a perfect man, but certainly not a secret occult worshiper like Wescott & Hort.  After exposing Hislop's "logic" in the last post, combined with this information, the "Easter is pagan" myth is on very shaky ground if it hasn't already fallen through a crack big enough to swallow up Korah.

While we cannot dig up Tyndale and ask just what he meant by this Easter, we can look at his work and determine a few things for ourselves.

  • Tyndale translated the New Testament BEFORE he translated the Old Testament.  This is significant because the word 'pascha' was translated as Easter in English before the word Passover ever existed (Passover was also invented by Tyndale).
  • Tyndale rendered the word Easter (spelled then Ester) in all the places the AV1611 NT now says Passover.
These two facts should worry you a bit if you still think Easter is a pagan word and of pagan origin.  If anyone knows the meaning of the word for sure it is Tyndale, right?  After all it is his word and his usage of the word will allow him to 'speak' to us about how he defined the word.  So lets let his usage define the word for us.  Lets look at how he rendered 1 Corinthians 5:7 - For Christ our ester lamb is offered up for us.  The AV says: ...Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.  If you really believe Easter is a pagan word, you must believe that Tyndale was saying: ...For Christ our Ishtar lamb or For Christ our pagan diety lamb...  You have to admit, that is the silliest thing you've ever heard.

Better yet, what about Hebrews 11:28 from Tyndale - ...Thorow faith he [Moses] ordained the ester lamb...  Did Moses ordain an Ishtar lamb?

It is clear that the man that invented the word Easter knew of no such definition that has been propelled onto, blindly accepted and parroted by the Body of Christ.


Monday, April 18, 2011

Hislop Said What?

A study of the 'Easter is pagan' myth begins with Alexander Hislop and his work The Two Babylons.  Why?  Because in this work, originally released in 1853 and expanded in 1858, is where it is first stated that the word Easter is of Chaldean origin.  Here is the quote from the book:

"Then look at Easter.  What means this term Easter itself?  It is not a Christian name.  It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead.  Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country.  That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar."

This all sounds good, but there are a couple of problems with Hislop's study.  He first asks what does the term Easter mean.  According to Webster's 1828 Easter is: A festival of the christian church observed in commemoration of our Savior's resurrection. It answers to the pascha or passover of the Hebrews, and most nations still give it this name, pascha, pask, paque.  Keep in mind, this dictionary was released just a few years before Hislop's book; what did Hislop know that Webster did not, or vice versa?  The second problem with Hislop's opinion on Easter is he never actually says why or provides his proof that Easter is Ishtar.  In the aforementioned quote he only states the similar pronunciation.  Hislop goes on in this section to speak about the addition of Lent and the background of eggs and their addition as well.  But he never says anything about the actual word Easter being pagan in origin except that it is similar to Ishtar.

Hislop concluded that Easter is Ishtar because of a grammatical similarity across languages.  And now today most of professing Christianity will repeat this myth that Easter is pagan based upon Hislop's faulty analysis and reasoning without even knowing it.


Sunday, April 17, 2011

I Celebrate Easter!

Yes.  I said it.  I celebrate Easter; unashamedly at that!

What about you? No?  Why? "Because everyone knows it's pagan."  And certainly this is a very close to the statement I get when asked about or am engaging in a conversation concerning Easter.  This is also what I heard growing up in church as well and like most, I believed what I heard.  And of course it must have been true because "everyone knows" that bunnies and chocolate eggs have nothing to do with the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

As a King James Bible believer, we know this verse very well as it is one of the first to be pulled out of the hat by cronies of James White et. al. as proof that God's Book is not perfect.  If you have been around these hereticks claims, then you know the standard answer as well, "Herod was celebrating his pagan festival, called Easter, then he was going to deliver Peter to the Jews."  But sometimes we Christians overreact.  Just as we did when evolution exploded onto the scene.  Christians immediately stuck the evolutionary ages in the Genesis 1:1-2 gap unknowingly birthing the heresy of theistic evolution.  Is there a gap between Genesis 1:1-2?  Yes.  Is it billions of years with dinosaurs and men with strangely shaped heads and posture?  No.

I'm afraid the same thing may have happened with the Easter issue.  In an effort to prove the AV1611 perfect by intellectual means (not saying intellectualism is always wrong) a slighting of a historic Christian observance may have taken place.  This is not to say Satanic "celebrations" have not crept into that day or that the timing of Easter is correct due to the switch of the Gregorian calendar.  But it is to say that the word in the English tongue called Easter is Christian at its core.

Stay tuned.


Saturday, April 16, 2011

Sola Ecclesia

It's funny to hear silly papists puke about protestants and Baptists belief in the scriptures alone or Sola Scriptura.  of course they say this because "The Church" is always right and never contradicts itself right?  Ha!  Only in a fantasy land where transubstantiation is actually true and Catholicism is Christian.  I mean, antichrists, uh..I mean popes never dig up their predecessor, put them on trial and condemn as a heretick: do they?  Funny you should ask: they do!


Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Inspiration & God-Breathed: Same Thing?

This is not going to be an in-depth study of the doctrine of inspiration; but just a quick analysis of basic and common sense information about how to use a dictionary.  First of all, let me be transparent: IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, it is my opinion that 'God-breathed' is a much easier term to grasp and understand mentally.  And IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, and IF 'God-breathed' is easier to understand, why didn't any other pre-modern version translation ever say 'God-breathed'?  Was Tyndale a fool? The answer is no.  Tyndale was not a fool; those who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' are the fools.

Let's be clear: people who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' mean that God breathed out the very words of scripture.  The key phrase here is 'breathed out' just as it says the Re-Revised RSV A.K.A ESV - "All scripture is breathed out by God..."  The problem with this definition and the translation is it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about the production of scripture AND it adds to just one more contradiction between the Authorized Bible and the non-authorized ones.  Keep in mind, you have been taught or heard that inspiration/God-breathed/breathed out by God all mean the same thing.  Here is the definition (as it relates to breathing) of inspiration: the drawing of air into the lungs; inhalation.

Do you know anyone that believes God inhaled the words of scripture?  If all scripture is breathed out by God the AV1611 should say, "All scripture is given by expiration of God..." because expiration is the act of breathing out or exhaling.

What is interesting, is almost every secular dictionary includes the theological definition of words amongst their list of definitions where applicable.  So what do secular dictionaries say inspiration means in a theological context? From a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul & the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.  Notice there is nothing about breathing, breath, wind, or anything relating to the respiratory system.  Are these modern secular dictionaries wrong?  99% of modern Bible 'scholars' can't be wrong, can they?  Yes they can be, and they are.  Compare the theological definition with 2 Peter 1:21 - "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Now maybe you're thinking this is just some modern redefining by  Well here is how Noah Webster defined the word in his 1828 dictionary: the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.

Again, nothing about breathing for breath is present.  But what about earlier translations and how they rendered it?  The old Syriac and Ethiopic scriptures render "given by inspiration of God" as "by the Spirit of God" and "written by the Spirit" respectively.

Now where did and Webster 1828 get this theological definition of inspiration?  Obviously, from the scripture itself; the same place you should get your theological definitions and not from the medical field.

Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 says: " prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  "God-breathed" is a private interpretation. 


Monday, April 4, 2011

Spiritual Discernment & The King James Bible

In this 400th anniversary year of the Authorized Version of 1611, almost everyone (even anti-KJV apostates) is getting a good word in for the Book.  Most of these big publishers such as Thomas Nelson and Zondervan are really doing it to make some extra money, but nevertheless they are still attempting to 'honor' it.  But one has to find it interesting that even some atheists have said some surprisingly nice things about the Holy Bible.  I understand these people don't actually believe that it is the word of God, but just a masterpiece of English literature, it is still interesting.  And none more interesting than a recent article featuring Christopher Hitchens appearing in the The Christian Post.  I hope you will take time to read this article if you have not done so already.

What makes this article so interesting is his comparison between the modern perversions and the AV.  Hitchens had the opportunity to read Philippians 4:8 at his father's funeral.  And when compared to the CEV he said the contemporary version was "pancake-flat" and more suited for "a basement meeting of A.A."  Hitchens also said of the modern perversion, "[T]hese words could not hope to penetrate the torpid, resistant fog in the mind of a 16-year-old boy..."

In terms of updating the Holy Bible to make it more relevant Hitchens weighed in and opined, "To seek restlessly to update it or make it 'relevant' is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare."  Quoting Job 5:7 he also states, "'Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,' says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?"

Hitchens also weighs in on the stupidity of gender-neutral language in the TNIV and the re-packaged TNIV, the NIV2011.  But Hitchens' discernment of these things has to make you wonder about so-called Christians that cannot discern these same, seemingly obvious points.  I'm willing to give some grace to Christians that have not studied this issue and ignorantly use a perversion because they are just following what their pastor said or they just took the advice of the bookstore salesman.  But you have to wonder about people that have studied the issue and continually fight God's book for the English speaking world; men like James White, John Ankerberg, the professing Christians on these translation committees.  If Hitchens can discern these truths WITHOUT the Spirit,  why can't saved people that have the Spirit abiding in them?  Is the Spirit of God abiding in them?  Or are they part of a conSPIRacy, led by another spirit; blindly or willingly? (Psalm 2)


Thursday, March 17, 2011

Patrick of Ireland

Today is Saint Patrick's day.  And while, admittedly, most people who celebrate this are probably a bunch of college students planning on getting drunk and missing Friday's classes, there is some truth to learn from the real man commonly called Saint Patrick.

There are two great resources for you to see about the real Patrick of Ireland; not the Catholic picture you have most likely been exposed to.  Both links are by Bro. Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest, of Berean Beacon.  The first is a video produced by Bro. Bennett (about an hour in length) about the Real Saint Patrick, his background and beliefs (and if you know anything about Theology/doctrine you will quickly discern Patrick was anything but a Popish person) and the second is a six page PDF with much of the same information.  Pick your poison and enjoy hear the truth about real saint of God.

The Real Saint Patrick (Video)

The Legacy of the Real St. Patrick (PDF)


Friday, March 4, 2011

On Textual Critcs & Criticism...Pastor Knox

This quote about the irony of textual criticism and the Nicolaitans that practice it is from Pastor James Knox.  I think you'll find it funny, ironic, and true.

"How odd that a man and his friends sit upon antique furniture in a study surrounded by a collection of old books, listen to classic music which is hundreds of years out of date, play "the sport of kings" on great-grandfather's chess board and criticize the Holy Bible (AV) because it contains a dozen old words which are no longer in common speech!!"


Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Fundamentalist Vs. Bible Believer (Pastor William Grady)

"At it's inception, Fundamentalism was a conservative ecumenical movement pioneered by baby-sprinkling Protestants who never fulfilled the Great Commission a day in their lives (i.e., "...baptizing them in the name of the Father..."), timed around the arrival of the blasphemous American Standard Version of 1901.  Doesn't Bible-believing Baptist sound a whole lot better?"


Friday, February 18, 2011

Pastor William P. Grady on Sermon Content

"There is a marked difference between pastors who were trained by 'TR men' and pastors who were trained by 'KJB men.' The sermon content of the former generally revolves around topical themes, devotional areas, the home, biographical sketches, patriotism, and 'revival,' while the sermon content of the latter encompasses verse-by-verse Bible teaching and preaching (affording both doctrinal and devotional application)..."


Thursday, January 27, 2011

Word of God vs word of God?

We know from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh.  But we also know that God has given us his written word by inspiration: the holy scriptures.  In this 400th anniversary year of the Authorized Version, we can still behold wonderful and mighty things from it that will increase our faith.  One way of doing this is allowing the incarnate Word of God to be a similitude for the written word of God.  The Gospel of John gives us the best description and definition about the Word.  With this in mind, realize that there are 66 books in the Bible.  Now read John 1:1-5 below, then count the number of words in them.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Verse of the Day: Genesis 45:1-3

1 Then Joseph could not refrain himself before all them that stood by him; and he cried , Cause every man to go out from me. And there stood no man with him, while Joseph made himself known unto his brethren. 2 And he wept aloud : and the Egyptians and the house of Pharaoh heard. 3 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence.


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 41:57

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.


Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 39:3

And his master saw that the LORD was with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper.


Friday, January 21, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 28:12

And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.


Thursday, January 20, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 26:5

Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.


Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Tips For Proper Bible Study Part 2B: Bibles

I am a proponent of using multiple Bibles.  Personally, I have a Bible that I use for reading, a Bible I use for study topics and words, a Bible I use to study whole books, and a Bible I use for church.  While this may or may not appeal to you personally, it helps me keep everything straight.  Here are few tips on getting the right Bible.

Reading Time
Do not confuse reading time and study; they are not the same.  For reading it is best to have a text-only Bible or a Bible with minimal notes and cross references.  It may also help to have some margin space available so that when you come across words you do not know you can write the definition in the margin.  Not using a study Bible help as you should be reading for volume and repetition.  Often when a study Bible is used you can find yourself reading the study notes more than the actual scriptures.  One of the Bible's I use for reading is this one from Local Church Bible Publishers; you can't beat their quality and price.

Bible Study
The question here is should you use a study bible.  Whether or not you choose to will be up to you, but you must realize that no matter who's study bible you use you are reading the notes of a man.  Never confuse the commentary with the scripture and never assume the commentary is correct.  You should also do a bit of research on the person who's notes are in the study bible you choose.  This will help you steer clear of serious theological error and heresy such as Preterism, Monergism, amillenialism, post-millenialism, etc.

Whether you choose to use or not to use a study bible, you will still need to decide if you will take notes in your bible or in a notebook.  Here are two excellent choices to use if you want to take notes in your bible: 1) The Classic Note Bible and 2) The Note Takers Bible from Local Church Publishers.


Verse of the Day: Genesis 22:8

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.


Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 19:14

And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.


Monday, January 17, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 17:10

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.


Sunday, January 16, 2011

Verse of the Day: Genesis 12:2-3

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


Friday, January 14, 2011

David Horowitz at UCSD 5/10/2010. Hosted by Young Americans for Freedom...


Verse of the Day: Job 39:9

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?


Thursday, January 13, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 36:11-12

11 If they obey and serve him, they shall spend their days in prosperity, and their years in pleasures. 12 But if they obey not, they shall perish by the sword, and they shall die without knowledge.


Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Commentary on Job 32:9

Elihu, a man of youth, waits his turn after the discourse of Job and his three friends and makes a statement in verse nine that we should all heed in this present day.  Elihu realized that great men are not always wise.  This can be a two-fold meaning for us: 1) Great men are not always wise and 2) Men that are great are not wise all the time.

Great Men Are Not Always Wise
This statement is somewhat obvious and needs no real explanation.  Just because a man is great does not automatically mean he is wise.  We can think of all kinds of men that are great: by substance, by popularity, by position, by education, etc.  And we know lots of these men are not wise at all.  We must not fall for for the simplicity that so many Christians fall for as was said by Gamaliel in Acts 5:38 ...for if this work be of men, it will come to nought...  We cannot be so naive that we believe just because a work is great it is of God.  If this were true, we should all become Roman Catholic today.

Men That Are Great Are Not Wise All the Time
This second one is where we need to be careful.  We have become so lazy in this Laodicean age of the church that we have fallen into the trap that Paul warned against in 1 Tim 6:5 ...supposing that gain is godliness...  We often look at certain men and ministries and hold their opinions up as the standard as which the rest of us should believe because they have a huge bus ministry, or their church has such large membership and a college.  But we must remember that man at his best is vanity (Ps 39:5, Eccl 3:19).  And while these great men are often right and are doing great things for God, they may not be wise in all areas of ministry or life.  For instance: John R. Rice is held up as great example in Fundamental circles; but did you know John R. Rice was a supporter of the ASV over the AV?  The ASV is a translation that even liberal scholars agree today was a terrible translation.  Does this mean that we should disregard everything he said?  Absolutely not: Mr. Rice has preached and taught many things of value that are truth that we can heed.  What about Schofield: how many times was he married, but how people have a Schofield Bible on their shelf and have been blessed by it?  And Spurgeon, a Calvinist (although I'm not sure you can really be a Calvinist and not believe all five points of the TULIP); how many times as he been quoted from the pulpit of Independent Baptist churches?  What about Dr. Ruckman: married three times, yet Dr. Ruckman has probably forgotten more Bible than most preachers alive right now even know.

At the end of the day, we are told in scripture to, "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess 5:21).  This is what we must do; let the scriptures truly be our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  While we all say this, too often we hold to a position because, "we are fundamental Baptists, and that's what fundamental Baptists believe," or "the traditional position is..." or even "my Bible college professor said..."  While all three of these statements could actually lead to truth, we ought not to believe it because of that; otherwise we are no better than a Catholic that refers to "the Church" as the authority of what they believe.  We ought to always ask what saith the scriptures?  This is the only source of truth (John 17:17).

So regardless of how well we esteem a man or their works as righteous and sincere as they may be, we should always fall back on Romans 3:4 ...let God be true, but every man a liar...



Verse of the Day: Job 32:9

Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 32:8

But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.


Monday, January 10, 2011

About That Archaic King James...

The nicolaitans that constantly knock the Authorized English Bible all have one thing in common; education.  On the surface, there is nothing wrong with education, but when education gets in the way of learning there is a serious problem; one that has caused serious error in the Body of Christ and overthrown the faith of of some (2 Tim 2:18).  Of course not all educated persons are incapable of learning, but the one's that do are no longer considered reputable.  You see this argument a lot in the evolution v. creation debate: if a scientist believes in creation then he is automatically not a reputable scientist.  So here is an "irreputable" scholar, Dr. Gerardus Bouw PhD, on the archaic English in King James:

"...we see the world's languages becoming less sophisticated in time, not more...  Anyone who would take the trouble to find out just why the Authorized Bible used 'odd' phraseology at times would soon be amazed at how much detail, explicitness, and fine structure the English language has lost in the last 400 years.  There is no language in the world which is naturally or evolutionarily improving...  the sentence structures and parts of speech are fast losing distinctiveness."


Verse of the Day: 24:2

Some remove the landmarks; they violently take away flocks, and feed therof.


Sunday, January 9, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 23:12

Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.


Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Laburum & The Antichrist

A few weeks ago we speculated if there was some correlation between this last days "Greekspeak" movement and the future ecumenical, one world religion of the antichrist.  While I do not believe any man can fully know today, there are some strange coincidences.  Here is a short video about a book written by a Catholic about the laburum.  Watch this short (less than 2 minutes) video, then look at this mock picture and notice the mark in Mr. Rosebrough's hand.  I am certainly not suggesting that Mr. Rosebrough is the antichrist as I don't even know who he is, but this mock GQ picture struck me as eerie with the mark and one eye.


Verse of the Day: Job 19:14

My kinsfolk have failed, and my familiar friends have forgotten me.


Friday, January 7, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 14:1

Man that is born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble.


Thursday, January 6, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 12:16

With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.


Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Verse of the Day: Job 9:8

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Tips For Bible Study Part 2: Proper Materials

2 Timothy 2:13 - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

In his second to last epistle, Paul implored Timothy to bring these materials to him, but especially the parchments.  Especially the parchments because Paul loved his kinsmen in the flesh so much that before he departed this world, he wanted to write them a letter: The Epistle to the Hebrews.

Like the apostle Paul, there are somethings we need to have a successful bible study, and there are some things we especially need.  Let's look at a list of things broken down in these two categories that will help in your study of the scriptures.

Especially Needed Items - Items you must have

  • Authorized Version Bible - While there is no question that we are King James Only, this is only part of the reason you will need the Authorized Version for good believing Bible study.  One of the important things to understand about scripture is that topics/doctrines are often mentioned in various books with only some of the information about that topic/doctrine given in each place.  The AV was translated properly and using consistent terminology as to aid with cross-referencing.  Because the modern versions change lots of words and phrases for the sake of securing a financial copyright, lots of these patterns are destroyed and therefore will impede in bible study.  We will show examples of this later when we look at cross referencing and a sample study.
  • Pen or Pencil - It is up to you which you prefer and are more comfortable with.  Whether or not you mark you Bible or not is also up to you.  This may also depend upon if you have a note taking or wide margin Bible.  If you plan on taking notes in your Bible then we highly recommend using multiple copies as this will keep your notes clearer.
  • Notepad/notebook - Even if you plan to put notes in your Bible, you still need a notebook or notepad to take notes: there is not enough room in any Bible to hold all the notes in the margin.  Later, we suggest typing in the notes to a word processor.  This way the next time you read/study that passage, topic, verse, book, or cross reference you can add new things to your already existing notes; almost like a personal commentary.

Optional Study Items - Not essential, but can be helpful
  • Webster's 1828 Dictionary - Later we will show how to discover the meaning of an unknown word by cross referencing the scripture.  But sometimes it is helpful to have a dictionary handy for reading if you just need to look up a quick definition.  I have yet to find a definition in the 1828 that contradicts the AV.
  • Way of Life Encyclopedia - David Cloud sticks it foot in his mouth on occasion, but this  work is pretty good; full of topical information and definitions of scripture words and doctrines as well as cults.
  • Concordance - Although I would trust definitions from concordances and lexicons given their authors and their "theology" (see Gail Riplinger's Hazardous Materials), but it is good for looking up lists of words for word studies.  For instance: if studying baptism, you can use a concordance to find every place the word baptism and all the variations of it - baptism, baptized, baptizest, etc.  It is also helpful when looking at names and their meanings as they often tell something about the person.  There are free online programs that you can use, pay programs, and the old hard copy.  Use what best fits your budget.
  • Treasury of Scripture Knowledge - Good for simple cross references.


  © Blogger templates ProBlogger Template by 2008

Back to TOP