/christian/ - christian

It is tragic that Christians today have allowed tradition to make the word of God of none effect. Those traditions are the result of centuries of apostatizing during which the Enlightened principles of Greek philosophy displaced faith as the foundation of our mental processes. That foundation of Reason in turn produced the Western civilization that has so blinded 99% of the church it hasn’t even an inkling that it is apostate. In fact, it is statistically probable that you and every born-again Christian you admire as a dedicated and fervent servant of Christ are carnal to the core. You think that’s going a bit too far? If you are still able to view Christianity from a Biblical perspective, how would you describe a church in which the vast majority does not believe the unleavened word of God exists anywhere on earth? In fact, that majority group constantly derides the minority group for the sole reason that the minority group by faith accepts God’s Biblical definition of word of God, Bible, and Scripture as His preserved, inspired, and inerrant word. Shockingly, the majority group has rejected God’s definition and, without authority, redefined Bible to mean “corrupt translation.” I say shockingly because the Bible says: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar (1 Jn 5:10). This unbelief is why many Christians pretend to “correct” their Bible versions by consulting Greek and Hebrew dictionaries. I say pretend because even the most respected theologians and language experts have been unable, after using more sophisticated methods for well over a century, to produce an uncorrupt Bible version that doesn’t need constant “correcting” by rank amateurs who pretend they’re more capable than the experts.

Pagan philosophy has done its work in the church. That’s why other doctrines I’ve addressed in this book generate more interest and discussion than does the only topic God Almighty magnifies even above His holy name (Ps 138:2b). The Bible gets lots of lip service but Christians no longer magnify it above the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Ac 4:10,12). This is not a minor issue. The Bible is the sole bedrock and source of our faith and doctrine; there is nothing else. The word of God is such a fundamental necessity that I believe the Bible version issue to be the single most blatant and shocking indicator of the sad state of the modern church. Because the word of God is a prerequisite to discernment, when a Christian continually uses Reason instead of discernment he is either a baby or an apostate; there are no other choices.

Why did God tell us our foes would be our fellow Christians (Mt 10:36; Ps 55:12-15)? Because the true threat is carnal-minded Christians who conceal their enmity against God (Ro 8:7) with sheep’s clothing. The unsaved have never defeated Christians in any battle of any kind – we’ve always defeated ourselves with leaven in our own camp. Because of the rampant false doctrine in our ranks about the Holy Bible, modern preachers who believe in “higher textual criticism” are sending us into battle armed with the corrupt word of man rather than with the Sword of the Lord. Even many of those who use the King James Bible do so without faith because they do not believe it is the inspired word of God. The most obvious indicator of modern unbelief is the practical denial of the existence of the word of God. Back in the 1800s “higher textual criticism” was supposed to help the church by arming it with “more reliable” Bible versions. But we know by its fruit that it has done the opposite: Millions of Christians now think the inspired, inerrant word of God does not exist in any Bible version on earth! That has resulted in more Christians never mastering the Bible because it’s a waste of time studying something you can’t trust. And faithful Christians who properly quote Scripture are increasingly confronted by haughty brethren who change the subject, dodge the issue, and “correct” them by turning to Greek and Hebrew dictionaries in the back of a concordance.

If you are already knowledgeable about this issue you have been carefully analyzing my choice of words in order to evaluate exactly what I mean when I say word of God, Bible, and Scripture. I’ll make it easy for you: The Authorized 1611 King James Bible is without a doubt the word of God. By that I mean God selected every word in it – even the words in italics. The King James Bible is today the inspired-by-God, infallible, inerrant, holy word of God with no contradictions or falsehoods of any kind. No other Bible version or book or manuscript available today is the word of God – they are all corrupt. That includes the New King James Version and the Textus Receptus.

Most people when referring to the Bible as the word of God capitalize the w in word to make it a proper noun. I don’t. I frequently ignore man’s rules of grammar and spelling in order to conform to the word of God. In the Bible, Word of God is given a capital W when it is used as one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jn 1:1,14; Re 19:13). When the Bible does not capitalize the w in word of God, it is referring to the words in the Book themselves (He 4:12; 1 Pe 1:23,25; 2:2). (By the way, if you do a word study in the Bible you’ll find that the things it says about the word of God it also says about Jesus Christ. I cannot overstress the importance of the word of God.)

When I say God selected every word in the Authorized Version I am certainly aware that God used fallible sinners like Moses, Isaiah, the King James translators, Jeremiah, and Paul to record His word, but unlike most Christians I do not stray from the fact that it is the word of God. I give Him all the credit and glory. Other people try to compare Paul with the King James translators and use the fact that Paul was the bigger sinner (1 Ti 1:15) in order to “prove” God wouldn’t use a clay vessel like Paul to produce His word. But I will not waste your time in a discussion of God’s word by talking about the number of sins different men may have committed.

When I say “Bible version” in reference to any of the unauthorized versions, I use the term merely for ease of communication. If I were to use a more accurate and appropriate term like “worthless piece of trash” some people might be distracted wondering if I’m using “trash” as a euphemism, and I’m trying to answer questions – not cause them.

It is sad I had to define “word of God”, “Bible”, and “Scripture”, but the shocking reality is we are surrounded by apostates whose blindness makes them act like inconsistent airheads. For example, it frustrates me when Christians mindlessly refer to the Bible, no matter what version, as “the word of God” (although they usually capitalize the w), or “Scripture”, or “Bible”, or “Holy Bible”, when they do not believe it is the word of God as defined in His word! According to God when we say “word of God” or “Scripture” we are supposed to be referring to something preserved, inspired, infallible, inerrant, not the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God (1 Th 2:13). What kind of idiot would refer to a corrupt Bible version as the “word of God”? Don’t they ever examine themselves when in prayer with God? Don’t they confess their daily use of blasphemy and profanity? God defines profanity as taking something holy – like His word – and treating it as common or base (Ezek 22:26; 44:23; Le 19:12). Therefore, when they use the term “God’s word” for a book they do not believe is the true word of God it is blasphemy and profanity. And when they dare to override God’s definition of His word it is effrontery of a kind that shocks and offends mature, knowledgeable Christians who have even a general understanding of authority. If they had any respect for God and His word they’d be careful when talking about their fallible Bible versions to only use words like “version”, “translation”, “word of man”, “pseudo Scripture”, “pseudo Bible”, “leavened, unpreserved word”, “text”, etc. They should never misuse the very words God has assigned to His inspired, infallible, holy word. And then when they force what they call “the Word of God” to kneel down and humbly submit to the overriding authority of a concordance – something even they know is of human origin – they commit more blasphemy and prove by their works they are humanists who glorify Reason over revelation. According to Ps 138:2b and Mt 12:32 Christians should be more careful with what they say about the word of God than about how they use the Lord’s name. What, you didn’t know that!?

There is the right way – the Scriptural way – to look for the true word of God, and there are wrong ways (all wrong ways are based on philosophy) to choose a Bible version. First, since without faith it is impossible to please Him (He 11:6), we must start by believing God exists and by believing what He has said about His word. Second, God says we are to know them by their fruits, as in a corrupt tree does not bring forth good fruit. Therefore if we find a Bible version with no errors or contradictions we may safely discern that the Tree from which that pure fruit came wasn’t the Apostle Paul, or Wescott and Hort, or the King James translators – it was God. And if we find a Bible version having errors and inconsistencies, we may safely discern that leavened fruit did not come from God, it came from man, and it should not be referred to as the word of God, the Bible, or Scripture.

The problem with what I’ve just said is it requires and is built upon faith in God. That is a blatant violation of the one supreme fundamental necessity of philosophy: Religious faith is not allowed to be involved in mental processes; only Reason can be used; only the scientific method can be used. Today’s Christian wants to be accepted in a secular society of unsaved people so he demonstrates the “seriousness” and “validity” of his scholarship by shunning spiritual discernment in favor of Natural Reason in direct violation of 1 Co 2:14. If you are not in agreement with what I’ve just said (and most Christians do not agree), it is unlikely that this chapter will help you; because without faith you can’t please God (He 11:6), and He will not allow you to understand reality (Lk 24:45; 1 Co 1:19,20) because anything you do that is based on science instead of faith is a sin against Him (Ro 14:23b).

Many of you Christians have doubts – for various reasons – about the Christianity you see around you. But you tend to think that so many Christian leaders and scholars over the centuries who built the huge system that is Christianity today couldn’t be wrong. How can all those people who took courses like Ancient Middle Eastern Architecture 101, Dead Language Studies 201, Mastering Church Economics 301, and The Mechanics of Successful Preaching Techniques 201 be wrong? And how can you know they’re wrong? I maintain that Christians would have better spent their time digging a leach field for a septic tank than taking those courses. I say that because those courses had a negative effect on their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; digging a ditch does not. How do I know that? Because I know the Bible.

In order to have the mind of Christ, to have spiritual discernment so you can judge all things (1 Co 2:14-16), you must go by the spiritual words in the Bible (1 Co 2:13; Jn 6:63; 14:23-26). Think of it this way: If you know the Bible, there is no authoritative information source about Christianity you haven’t read; you know all the pertinent material that was and is available to all preachers and scholars in history. Any doctrines they’ve ever come up with were supposed to have come solely from the Bible because there is nothing else. The Bible alone will show you the truth of Ps 119:97-100. That’s how you can know and be sure they are wrong.

They all know the Bible, too, don’t they? No, they’ve only read and studied it. But they do not believe anything they’ve studied is the word of God as defined by God in His word. That lack of faith caused God to not open their understanding, therefore they never outgrew the Natural man’s carnality we all must deal with when we get saved. That carnal Reason prevented them from gaining more understanding than all their preachers and professors. Indeed, it caused them to agree with the foolish wisdom of men who contradict God by saying, “You’ll know them by their roots; we must go back to the old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to find the truth because it sure isn’t in any Bible we have today.” They think – quite logically – that the older manuscripts were subjected to the corrupting influence of men for a shorter period of time and therefore probably contain fewer introduced errors. That ridiculous idea came from philosophy via the Antiquarians. How can I call something so logical ridiculous? Because as a servant of Jesus Christ I’m not allowed to depend on Reason – I’m to depend on revelation. (That sentence sums up this book.) Their logic is secular and completely ignores God and what He said He’d do with His word. They therefore cannot apply the fact that the Bible says the word of God is eternal. That means it is not affected or corrupted by time, tides, or fallible men. So they fail to follow Christ’s example by applying the significance He gave the present tense of “am” in Mt 22:31,32 to the present tense of “is” in 2 Ti 3:15,16.

Let’s now examine the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that scholars and preachers would like you to revere.

 
THE E.R.R.O.R. MANUSCRIPTS

Many Christians assume, because their preachers often confidently correct the word of God by quoting “the original Greek”, that the original Greek manuscripts exist. They don’t; it’s a myth. The original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic/Chaldean manuscripts – also called “the originals”, also called “the original autographs” – do not exist. And neither do any copies of the originals. In fact, for well over the last one thousand five hundred years no preacher, pewster, scholar, archeologist, or Bible translator has ever laid eyes on the originals or direct copies of the originals.

What does exist? Thousands of scraps, bits, pages, pieces, and fragments of old Bible versions ranging in date from the fourth to the thirteenth centuries. Why do I call them Bible “versions” instead of “Bibles” or Bible “manuscripts”? Because they are all different, they all say different things. It is from among these different versions that scholars pick and choose manuscripts and bits of pages they like and dislike, often using the same subjective criteria Christians use today when they walk into a huge bookstore to decide which Bible version they prefer. If it weren’t for the differences in these thousands of old, crumbling remnants and bits of pages of paper, parchment, papyrus, and vellum, scholars wouldn’t be able to loosely categorize and group the manuscripts into families. There are two main families involved in the Bible version debate.

The first group or family is the largest (it contains 90 to 95% of the old manuscripts) and is the least popular among scholars and preachers. (Remember, even though the word manuscripts is most often used, it refers to and includes all the single pages, partial scraps of pages, and portions of chapters and books.) Because it is the largest group, this family is called the Majority Text. It is also commonly called the Received Text, or Textus Receptus, because it includes the bulk of what we have “received” from antiquity. The Textus Receptus is a corrupt family of rotten Bible remnants because of the errors it contains.

In general, the minority of Christians who prefer the corrupt Textus Receptus family do so because they’ve been told the King James Bible came from the Textus Receptus, and because the Textus Receptus doesn’t have as many errors as the competing family of Bible versions. The former is wrong; the latter is correct but irrelevant. The King James Bible did not come from the Textus Receptus because the Textus Receptus grouping did not exist in 1611. Not until more than two centuries after the AV1611 came out did men began to save old bits of paper when they came across them instead of just using them as insulation. Many even began searching for them as they became convinced God had not preserved His word and they had to probe antiquity in order to uncover lost wisdom. As they found more and more remnants they invented families and decided to put the manuscripts used by the King James translators into the Textus Receptus because they didn’t have as many errors or the same kinds of errors as those in the competing family. But the real reason we know the Authorized King James Version did not come from the Textus Receptus is because the King James does not agree with any manuscript in the Textus Receptus. In fact, the KJV has readings in it that do not appear in any manuscript in any family on earth.

Many Christians consider the Authorized Version to be a member of the Textus Receptus family because carnal Reason will not allow them to accept, believe, and apply 1 Ti 1:4 and Mt 7:20. They think it’s clever to establish family trees by inventing manuscript genealogies in order to examine the roots. That’s why they call them manuscript families. They expose themselves as faithless Bible rejecters every time they open their mouths.

The competing family of manuscripts is small; it has but 5% of the existing remnants. Since many of these have been linked to Alexandria, Egypt, a large center of learning in the old days, this family is called the Alexandrian Text. This is the popular group and it is used for the vast majority of modern Bible versions. What appeals to most scholars about this family is that its scraps are older than those of the Textus Receptus. (Remember, as noted earlier, age does not apply to things that are eternal like the word of God.)

The two big stars in the Alexandrian family are the Sinai and the Vatican manuscripts. The Sinai manuscript got its name because it was found in a bundle of trash in a monastery near (what is guessed to be) Mt. Sinai. The Vatican manuscript is owned by the Vatican. In spite of the belief that greater age is supposed to equate to fewer errors, this family contains more errors than the younger Textus Receptus. (Not that it matters; it is errors that matter, not the number of errors.)

Even though it is called the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text, there is no one text. All of the various manuscripts within each family differ from each other. Another reason I often refer to these old manuscripts as different Bible versions is to emphasize that when someone says “the Textus Receptus” you have no idea what specific scraps he’s really referring to. Preachers downplay the number of errors, contradictions, and differences among the elements of the manuscript families in an attempt to get you to think some authoritative, unified, and cohesive “text” exists. So they like to speak of percentages of differences because it sounds better than the actual numbers when speaking about the word of God. To give you an idea how different the manuscripts or versions are, let’s look at an interesting statistic: Even manuscripts within the same family (which means those manuscripts that are considered to be “in agreement” with each other) average six to ten differences per chapter – and there are 1,189 chapters! Some of those differences are generally considered to be “minor” as long as they have no significant impact on the meaning or context of the chapter.

We’ll shortly examine some of those errors in order to verify that they are errors indeed, but so far I hope you’re beginning to understand that the position of the majority of preachers, pewsters, and scholars who do not believe God has made His holy word available to His church today is based firmly on Reason and Logic, not revelation and faith. And they are revealed to be hypocrites by the deceitful way they handle the verses in the Bible that define the word of God and that say God has preserved His inspired word for us. One preacher (whose pewsters assured me he strongly believed the King James was the word of God) was using all the rhetoric with me in a private conversation in which I was questioning him about his doctrinal beliefs. He was saying vague stuff like: “I believe this old black Book from cover to cover, and I even believe the cover”; “I believe the King James Version is the word of God and is the only version Christians should use.” When I pinned him down he admitted that because the Textus Receptus is corrupt, he thinks the King James is corrupt, and he believed only the lost original autographs were inspired and infallible. God made them disappear, he said, in order to prevent the idolatry of worshipping a book. He believes God wants errors in our Bible versions for the same reason. When I asked him about the verses that say the word of God exists today he said he believes it does exist – God has it with Him in heaven. (Not according to God: Dt 30:10-14.) He confided that he was telling me things he kept from his congregation because many of them couldn’t handle the truth; it would destroy their faith – they needed to think they held the word of God in their hands. I was able to get that information out of him because he is an honorable man and would not lie when I forced him to give me specific answers. Another reason he openly admitted his true stance is the sad fact that his beliefs are not considered to be heresy by the vast majority of educated Christians – they all believe essentially the same thing.

So, to get back to the textual families, which is better, the Alexandrian or the Textus Receptus family? Carnally speaking you can take your pick; it’s all subjective – like choosing a candy bar. Biblically speaking, though, they are both nothing but trash and should be used as kitty litter. Any moron can quote “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”, but carnal Christians don’t know how to apply the Scriptures to real life. So they run around proclaiming their leavened family of manuscripts is “older and more reliable” and is “recommended by scholars.” Their opponents counter by saying their own leavened family has fewer errors and was used by all Protestants until recently. Both of them are defending and promoting rotten fruit – only the degree of rottenness differs.

God does not produce or preserve leaven when it comes to His word. When people say God inspired the originals and then man corrupted them over the centuries, you may safely ignore them because they are ignoring God. It’s His word and He’s the one Who deliberately made all the impressive statements about it; He’s the one Who said He’d preserve it and judge us by it. So don’t ever, ever leave Him out of a Bible discussion. The reason the old manuscripts are nothing but decaying remnants is they are rejected by God as nothing but error-filled leaven. And it is reassuring that God has rejected them, because it shows He is not the exaggerating bungler Who said He’d preserve His word but failed to do so that most Christians think He is. Therefore, because apostate scholars have grouped the old manuscripts according to what Reason taught them was appropriate, it is appropriate for faithful followers of Jesus Christ to glorify Him by using revelation and faith to do the same thing in a more helpful and descriptive way. Since all manuscripts of both families are corrupt, and since that corruption is the single most important and relevant characteristic about them, all manuscripts of both families are grouped together and classified as the “E.R.R.O.R. Manuscripts.” ERROR is an acronym that serves as a reminder of what we’re talking about when we say things like “original Greek” and “Textus Receptus.” It means Existing Remnants of Rotten Old Rejects.

Now when you hear people say things like, “This family of manuscripts is more reliable”, you’ll realize they only said that because they can’t say it is free of errors. They are all ERROR manuscripts. The Textus Receptus should be called the Textus Rejectus.

 
THE DEAD-LANGUAGE TEXTS

When your preacher says, “According to the Greek (or Hebrew) text this word in our ‘Bibles’ really should be…” is he referring to the ERROR manuscripts? No, but he is allowing you to think he is: he has never even seen one of the thousands of scraps of the ERROR manuscripts and couldn’t read them if he did because they are written in dead languages. The Hebrew that God’s people spoke is a dead language now; no society or group of people speaks it any more. The Hebrew spoken today is different. The same is true for the Greek of the New Testament. It’s a dead-language dialect even the Greeks don’t speak today. I need to explain the dead-language texts before we get to what your preacher uses.

The ERROR manuscripts consist of thousands of dead-language (mostly Hebrew and Greek) manuscripts. The sheer number of them is intimidating. They differ from each other in many places. In many other places they agree with each other. In some places it’s anybody’s guess. The ERRORists are the men who comb through these old remnants and try to figure out which of the various readings for a verse might be more likely to be the correct one.

An ERRORist, for example, goes through a bunch (not all) of the ERROR manuscripts and picks this reading for some verse while rejecting other readings for the same verse. His editing is based on many things including religious and personal bias. In many cases he has great latitude when deciding which wording to select. His job is to turn thousands of differing ERROR manuscripts into one dead-language Bible text. In other words, he writes down what he thinks God “meant” to say. He has to contend with an average of six to ten variants per chapter and try to decide which one, if any, he is going to use. In some cases when he doesn’t think a verse looks genuine, he skips the verse. When he has every word in every verse just the way he thinks it should be he publishes it in the Greek dead language as Smith’s Greek Text. But Mr. Jones examines Smith’s book and can’t believe how bad it is. Jones thinks Smith should have used some remnants he ignored, should have selected a different variant to be the reading of a verse, should have given more weight to manuscript age, or to completeness, or to marginal notes in the manuscripts, etc. So Jones publishes his own Greek New Testament called Jones’ Greek Text. A few years later both men look back at their works and are not happy with them. So they revise them and publish second editions. All four editions remain available because different Bible version committees have different likes and dislikes.

When Brown takes a look at Smith’s Greek Text, Second Edition, he shakes his head in amused disdain. Smith chose to use Parchment Fragment 225 for the first part of a certain verse, and Brown thinks he should have used p46 or maybe even B for the entire verse. Brown also sees that Smith used Db, H, P, and 436 for a certain reading and never took into consideration the radically different but fairly clear reading in K. True, the reading doesn’t appear in many manuscripts but its clarity alone ought to give it some weight! He also knows Smith graduated from school back before 0208 had been dug up, and even though many scholars reject the validity of 0208, one of those who supports it is Brown’s own venerable dead-language professor. That would explain why Smith’s translation of a certain word was so typically ambiguous.

But according to Miller, Brown can be very opinionated. When Miller worked with him on the Brown-Miller Greek New Testament, Miller was fairly young and inexperienced. As a result he allowed Brown to bully him into accepting certain readings that Miller considered to be based too much on Brown’s social agenda, had too little manuscript evidence, and were misleading at best and deceitful at worst. In fact, had it not been for the fact that the text was Miller’s first opportunity to be published and to earn some good money he’d have quit the project. Years later Miller published his own Greek New Testament that he honestly believed to be far superior to the Brown-Miller Text. It was never half as popular as the Brown-Miller Text because Brown was an ass kisser and had all the right contacts. It always irritated Miller that the Brown-Miller Text was used for about 25% of the New Testament in one well-financed Bible version and almost 20% of another very popular version that really only did well because the publisher’s marketing people spent too much of the funding on slick packaging and advertising and not enough on committee work.

There are hundreds of ERRORists who often produce multiple editions. Each edition is different from all the others, which means there are hundreds of dead-language texts and each one is its own unique Bible version. That in itself is proof there is no such thing as “the Greek text” or “the Hebrew text.” There are hundreds of them, they are all subjective, and they are all different. And new ones are popping up all the time. The ERRORists who churn out these texts do not believe any of their finished works is the inspired word of God; they know better – they see too many ERRORs to believe otherwise.

So when you hear someone refer to “the Greek” or “the Greek text” you’ll know he is referring to one of the hundreds of modern books published by the ERRORists. Therefore you should always for the sake of accuracy ask which Greek text is being referred to. Is it the Brown-Miller Greek New Testament or the Second Edition of Smith’s Greek Text, or is the reference to portions of a number of different works? And when you hear someone correct the Bible by saying “the original Greek says…” you’ll now know the originals don’t exist, that copies of the originals don’t exist, that he should have said “The Brown-Miller text claims fragment 0208 of the ERROR manuscripts says…”, that he probably doesn’t know as much about the Bible version issue as you now do, and that he is an insecure, pompous gas bag spreading blasphemy about the living word of the living God.

 
THE MAKING OF A BIBLE VERSION

Modern Bible version committees never look at the actual ERROR manuscripts. They pick whatever Hebrew and Greek texts – published by ERRORists such as Brown and Miller – appeal to them and translate from those. Translating a dead language is not easy.

The translators are the men who take the dead-language texts published by various ERRORists and try to find out what the dead Hebrew and Greek words mean and what different ways they were used. For example if a dead-language reading said, “You’re kidding me!” they’d try to find enough ancient writings to study in order to figure out what kidding meant. Eventually they’d figure out it meant baby goat. So they’d translate it as, “You’re treating me like a young animal!” and publish it in a Bible version called The Revered Version. A later translating committee would decide the context had more to do with stupidity or ignorance and would translate it as, “You’re treating me as if I were as stupid as a young goat!” They’d publish it as The New Revered Version. Another publisher’s translating committee would utilize previously ignored old writings and, thinking it had a better idea of the true meaning of the passage, publish it in their The New Light Bible as, “Just as a goat gives birth, you’re causing an idea to be born in my mind.” Later another publisher would jump into the lucrative Bible market by hiring a multi-national translation committee and publish The Global Standard Version which rendered the verse as, “You’re being as playful with me as a baby goat!” It is important to understand that all of these attempts to determine the word meaning would be added to Hebrew dictionaries – and Christians who innocently believed these dictionary definitions were authoritative would later select one of these definitions to “prove” other Bible versions that selected one of the other definitions were “wrong.” Go look up a few words in Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and you’ll see they often have several disparate “definitions” from which to choose.

If you were to go up to the group of men who just finished a translation of the Old Testament for a modern Bible version and ask one of them how they did it, this is what he’d tell you. And remember, this is the accepted method:

“The generally accepted starting place for a translation of the Old Testament is to consult the various Masoretic Hebrew texts. One of the popular older versions of the Masoretic text is the ben Asher text. But some scholars agree with Daniel Bomberg that the ben Asher text is not what it should be, so they begin their Old Testament translation work with Bomberg’s revision of the Asher text. Later, Jacob ben Chayim published his own respected work because he considered none of the other works to be accurate renditions of the “true” Old Testament. Then Rudolph Kittel published two different editions of ben Chayim’s work six years apart because he felt even his own first edition should be changed. Paul Kahle then published his own version that relied heavily on one of ben Asher’s older works.

“Ah, decisions, decisions, my boy! That’s what our job is – to make informed decisions. With eleven years, off and on, of Bible translating work, I’m one of the senior translators on this particular committee, and, boy, could I tell you some stories! Anyway, of all the hundreds of texts produced by the ERRORist scholars, we decided to use the Daniel Bomberg text. However, the Bomberg text could use some help so we also selected readings from the Stuttgart Hebrew Edition, which you don’t hear much about anymore. We also borrowed passages from the Septuagint Greek translation of older Hebrew texts, as well as the Latin Vulgate text, which was popular for years in the Roman Catholic Church. However, we felt it was necessary to change some of the readings on our own based on some new stuff we read in a book about the latest findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

“At times, when we felt a better reading would result if we inserted different vowels into the ancient Hebrew from those used by the revisers of the Masoretic texts, we went ahead and followed our instincts. Other parts we changed based on some old translations whose antiquity we felt deserved some respect. But, not always happy with the previous sources, we also chose readings from the following Hebrew texts whose differences from each other gave us great discretionary latitude: the Aquila, the Symmachus and Theodotian, the Syriac Peshitta, the Targums, and the Juxta Hebraica. We also used various Hebrew dictionaries and books about the origins of languages. Sometimes where we could not decide what reading should be used and had no real preference, we solicited inputs from scholars we consider to be competent and who are in doctrinal agreement with us. During our work we were always conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit. We also found that the ERRORist work called the Samaritan Pentateuch contained some words and verses we preferred to use. And at times we felt compelled to reject the body of the text itself and instead use scribal marginal notes in our verses. In order to help figure out obscure meanings we looked up how the verse was translated in other modern Bible versions in English as well as in foreign languages. And to achieve clarity we sometimes added words not in the texts we consulted because our opinions are just as good as those of other people. And sometimes we made changes to verses in order to avoid copyright infringement and the accompanying legal battles with the publishers and owners of other modern Bible versions.

“Because we who make up the modern Bible version committees base the versions we produce on the disputed works of the ERRORists rather than upon the ERROR manuscripts themselves, we believe it is prudent and even necessary to pick and choose, consult, compare, debate, decide, revise, reject, and rewrite in order to best utilize the above sources so we can produce and market a top-notch product that will be appealing to you consumers – all at a reasonable price.

“In some places in your version you may notice a verse is missing. That is because we decided the verse probably wasn’t in the original autographs. So we removed the verse and skipped the verse number in order to conform to the numbering system adopted centuries ago and which the four-century dominance of the Authorized 1611 King James Version established as the verse numbering system. In fact, the King James somehow became the standard by which all Bible versions are measured. For example, because of the influence of the King James Version for so many centuries, we don’t always take corrupt verses out of our version – which really irritates us. But this is a consumer-driven industry and ignorant laymen are the ones whose money we’re after when we make a new translation. We learned from the outcry raised by Christian consumers when the RSV came out to be very careful. When Christians noticed their precious fairy tale about Jesus saying to the fictitious woman caught in adultery, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” wasn’t in the text of the RSV but was buried in a footnote, they went into a fit. It seems they not only objected to the myth being removed but also to the way the footnote was worded! The footnote made it clear that even though a few Greek manuscripts do include the information from John 7:53 through John 8:11, those trashy manuscripts don’t agree on whether to insert the “wives’ tale” (as we call it) here or at the end of John’s gospel or at the end of Luke 21. The footnote also offended the redneck sensitivities of those ignorant Bible believers from the Coca-Cola belt because it made it clear that even the wording of the story varies radically in the few manuscripts in which it appears! The publishers won’t let us word things that way anymore. And they won’t let us start John 8 with verse 12 anymore, except in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. We can bracket the fairy tale, but it stays in the text. And we can say in the footnote that John 7:53-8:11 isn’t in the “best” or “oldest” or “most reliable” manuscripts, but only the cheaper, pulp-paper Bible versions can get away with the full footnote because they target a different type of consumer. About the only place this information is openly and freely taught any more is in Bible schools because the average layman simply doesn’t have the capacity to handle the truth. You see, we think some guy invented the whole “cast a stone at her” story for unknown reasons and wrote it in an ancient Bible version. Then some other guy who’d probably heard the story or read it in that manuscript stuck what he could remember of the story in another manuscript – but he put it in a different place. We think the story caught on only because it was popular. That’s why we don’t think the incident ever happened at all.

“All of this will help you understand why we also feel a pressing urgency to translate everything into English words that are both current and simple. Our marketing people tell us most people like looking up words in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon because, even if they don’t learn anything, it makes them feel sophisticated and smart. But they don’t want to have to look up words in an English dictionary because it makes them feel stupid! God forbid they should improve their vocabulary! Admittedly though, a lot of us translators wouldn’t have a job if Christians could handle even simple, basic English. I mean, if they could handle English they’d all buy the Authorized Version instead of whining that they always have to look up in the dictionary what “thee” and “thou” mean. In this racket we have to walk a fine line: We have to dumb down our product to the level of the consumer while at the same time flattering them by making it appear sophisticated. Marketing research shows that gimmicks like full-color maps, study aids, concordances, red-letter editions, etc., are more often than not what sells Bibles. We hate the marketing people because each Bible version we work on has a larger percentage of its budget assigned to fluff. But that’s what sells. And we’re in the business of selling.”

And that is how a Bible version is made. As you can see, it is anything but an exact science. There is no authoritative Greek or Hebrew text. And the definitions in the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries are themselves merely collections of sincere – but often wildly diverse – attempts over the years by many different men to figure out how words might have been used back when they were parts of a living language. That is why as faithful Christians mature they eventually realize the whole “scholarship” routine is nothing but ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. So they deliberately and prayerfully reject science/knowledge and by faith begin looking for the true word of God by its fruit – inerrancy – rather than by its roots in antiquity. I am reminded of a big-name preacher who by all accounts is a man of integrity who loves the Lord and prominently uses the King James but doesn’t believe it is the word of God. He was invited to be an honorary member of a Bible translation committee a few years ago. (This story is hearsay from a member of his congregation.) The project was to produce a modern version based on the Textus Receptus. The preacher became so disillusioned and disgusted with what went on he resigned from the committee.

One of the big reasons so many preachers and pewsters become jaded, cynical, hypocrites is they do not believe the word of God exists. And the more they use the dead languages as correcting authorities over the living word of God, the phonier they become. Which brings us back to what your preacher uses when he corrects God.

 
LAYMAN’S AIDS

The Bible version your preacher holds in his hand is the result of the best scholarship money can buy. The ERRORists have spent much time and energy becoming experts on the ERROR manuscripts and the dead languages. They’ve brought all their considerable expertise to bear in the production of their Hebrew Old Testament texts and their Greek New Testament texts. Your preacher isn’t qualified to even touch the hem of the ERRORists’ garments. That’s why he’ll never even dream of publishing his own dead-language text.

The same is true of the Bible translators: They have spent much time and energy becoming experts in their field. They’ve forgotten more about the dead languages and the mechanics of translating them than your preacher ever learned from his assignments in his Dead Languages 101 course – even if he managed to get decent grades when he turned in his homework to his teacher. That’s why no publisher would ever dream of hiring your preacher to translate the next Bible version.

Your preacher went shopping one day and bought a Bible version. The expert translators who put that Bible version together made informed choices about which Hebrew and Greek texts to use. Then they combed through many, many volumes of other works in order to refine both the underlying texts and the actual English words that appear in each verse in the Bible version. Your preacher liked their work enough as a consumer he paid to have it.

But your preacher isn’t smart enough to know how dumb he is. So he thinks his Dead Languages 101 homework assignments made him a better-qualified expert on the dead languages and on translation work than the men who devote their lives to that work. He wants to strut his stuff by correcting the experts. But because he doesn’t really know his rear end from a hole in the ground he needs what I call a layman’s aid.

Many kinds of layman’s aids are published. All of them are designed to give some basic information. Some of the more popular ones are Greek and Hebrew lexicons, concordances, and interlinear Bibles. Some interlinear Bibles compare different Bible versions with each other. Others compare an English version with Greek and Hebrew texts. These may contain notes about which ERROR manuscript fragment was used and about variations in other fragments. Concordances and interlinears tend to be popular among laymen such as preachers and pewsters because they are quick and easy to use.

If your preacher went to Bible school he may have kept one of the books they made him buy. If that is too complicated for him he probably bought an interlinear, a concordance, or some other basic, easy-to-use dictionary.

Here’s what he does. If he gets his sermons from some of the published sermons, they often tell him which words in his Bible version to correct. These corrections are almost always because denominational doctrine doesn’t like certain words in the version. If he prepares his own sermons, he won’t correct his Bible version as often because he doesn’t know what to correct. If he does correct the Bible in sermons of his own making you can often tell because his correction is a stupid, pompous waste of your time. For example, one preacher pointed out that the English word “conscience” is formed by “con” (with) and “science” (knowledge). He then pointed out that the Greek word for conscience is “suneidesis”, which is formed by the Greek “sun” (with) and the Greek “eidesis”(knowledge)! Notice that the church is not edified by that kind of drivel. But they’re not trying to help you; they’re trying to make you think they’re smart. All they accomplish, however, is to prove they are in way over their heads and have no business shepherding a flock.

But it’s when they correct their Bible version (no matter what version it is) by saying, “This is an unfortunate translation; the real Hebrew meaning for this word is…” that they reveal themselves to be unbelievers and fools. Unbelievers because they don’t believe the word of God exists, and fools because they think you’re going to accept them as more qualified in the ERROR manuscripts and in the nuances of translating than the paid professionals! The very fact that your preacher thinks he can spend three and a half minutes in the dictionary section of his concordance and come away knowing more than entire translation committees is the height of folly, and it proves he is incompetent. He does not understand language in general, dead languages in particular, dictionaries, or why the Hebrew and Greek dictionary in the back of his concordance often has a very broad selection of definitions from which to choose. What, does he really think the translators of his Bible version weren’t aware of those other choices? Can he get any more stupid?! Your preacher would be more impressive if he quoted other Bible versions by saying something like, “This ‘young animal’ in our version was translated as ‘baby goat’ in the Global Standard Version. I respect the expertise of both translators but I think ‘baby goat’ fits with the context and with our denominational doctrine better.” If he limits himself to quoting other versions at least he’s quoting the work of experts instead of “correcting” the work of experts.

You can’t take a layman’s aid and Dead Languages 101 and out expert the experts. All you can do is make yourself look like a pompous, bungling, foolish Bible rejecter. But that’s why layman’s aids are published (in addition to making money); they are so you can make up your own Bible version and be your own authority. You don’t have to accept the ERROR manuscripts, the ERRORists, the translators, the Bible versions, or the preachers as authorities; all you have to do is what seems right to you…like everybody else does.

Now, let me make something clear about manuscripts and Bible versions. In general, all Bible versions on earth, except for the King James Bible, are faithful, accurate, scholarly translations of the ERRORists’ dead-language texts. Differences between Bible versions are due mainly to the translators’ selections among the many available ERRORist texts, and in small part due to perfectly justifiable latitude in the translation of various words and the clarification of meaning. When those versions say the story about the woman caught in adultery isn’t in most manuscripts, they aren’t lying. And when people say there are readings in the King James Bible that don’t appear in any manuscript on earth, they aren’t lying. The King James is not a faithful, accurate, scholarly translation of the Textus Receptus or of any manuscript on earth. And when people tell you the ERROR manuscripts are full of errors, and the Bible versions that come from them faithfully and accurately preserve those errors, they are absolutely correct.

But when they say the King James came from the corrupt Textus Receptus, the King James contains errors, the King James is not the word of God, and the word of God does not exist on earth, they do err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

It is important to note the majority of Christians known as defenders of the King James Bible are not defending it as the word of God as defined by God. They are defending the King James as the least corrupt version. Here is what one of these prominent “King James only” proponents has to say: “God’s preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous…The scribes and printers who produced the copies…were not inspired…Hence there are some New Testament passages in which the true reading cannot be determined…the Textus Receptus disagrees with the Traditional [Majority] text…the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And…the case is the same with the Old Testament text.” He then goes on: “Admittedly this venerable [Authorized] version is not absolutely perfect…should the need for…a new English version ever arise…ensure that only the [KJV] be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.” (In other words he wants the less corrupt Textus Receptus to not be replaced or mixed with the more corrupt Alexandrian text.)

Another defender of the Authorized Version says, “The object of the following chapters is to demonstrate that the Received Text underlying the King James Version more faithfully preserves [than does the Alexandrian Text] the inspired revelation…We do not say the King James Version is infallible. There are changes that could be and should be profitably made.”

OK, we’ve established that the ERRORists don’t respect their own work as authoritative. We’ve seen that the translators respect neither the work of the ERRORists nor their own work as authoritative. We’ve seen that many in the “King James only” group teach that the KJV they use is not the word of God. And we’ve seen that preachers and pewsters don’t respect anything as authoritative because they go to and fro with their layman’s aids fearlessly contradicting and foolishly “correcting” everything. And we’ve established that they do this because of unbelief; they do not believe the word of God exists. They do not believe there is an authoritative Bible in existence that can correct them and their doctrines.

What do I know that they don’t know? I know they are going about this Bible version stuff backwards because of their unbelief. How do I know that? Because the Bible tells me so. But it only told me that when, through faith, I believed God and He opened my understanding. It’s very simple; any unsaved moron can understand my position. But they cannot believe it.

Let’s examine the fruit of the Bible versions instead of foolishly trying to know them by going back to their roots.

 
“ERRORS”

When Christian unbelievers in the existence of the word of God want to spread their hypocritical belief, they often use science. Let’s look at how they “prove” the Bible is not the word of God:

Le 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

For many generations scholars howled with laughter at this verse because modern man knew rabbits don’t chew their cud – they don’t even have a cud! Believers sat in grim-faced stony silence, faithfully trusting, hoping the word of God was somehow correct. If you read an older (fifteen or twenty years) book on raising rabbits, it will tell you to clean out their cages frequently in order to prevent the disgusting creatures from eating their own shitballs. Newer books, however, will tell you man has now discovered that rabbits chew their cud. They don’t regurgitate it like cows, sheep, and goats; they poop it in soft, egg-shaped masses. Remembering where they deposited them, rabbits return later, consume the nutritious nodules again, and then deposit the true waste as the smaller, rounder, harder pellets that Bible-rejecting assholes no longer bring up as “proof”! What a Book! How did we know rabbits chew their cud? Because it’s in the Authorized Version! (The fact that it’s also in the unauthorized versions is not helpful – that just means it’s either true or not true.) So the next time you see a pile of rabbit shit, laugh and tell your family it’s a fitting monument to unbelief; it’s not wisdom from a dumb ass (2 Pe 2:16), it’s wisdom from a hare’s ass.

 

Nu 25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

1 Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

A national Christian publication a few years ago ran a major article entitled, Inerrancy: The Bible is the Word of God. The article included a section showing that all Bible versions have errors. Nu 25:9, which says twenty-four thousand died in the plague, is contradicted, the Christian author claimed, by the number in 1 Co 10:8. The scholar missed the fact that Nu 25:9 is a total number, while 1 Co 10:8 tells how many died in one day.

The article went on to say all Bible versions are just versions and not the “Word of God.” (Yes, the W was capitalized. A lot of Christians who haven’t learned from God’s Authorized Version to pay attention to every little detail miss things like that.) It said (correctly) all Greek and Hebrew texts in existence have contradictions and errors. It also said (incorrectly) only the “original autographs” were inspired and inerrant, and thank God they no longer exist because He doesn’t want anybody worshipping a book by thinking it’s His inspired word! It never did explain how the Bible is the word of God if the word of God no longer exists, but as the Nu 25:9/1 Co 10:8 “proof” shows, if you mess with God’s word, He’ll mess with your brain.

I think you are beginning to see what the Bible version issue is all about. It’s about the Authorized 1611 King James Bible. That’s it; if the King James Bible didn’t exist there wouldn’t be a single saint who believed God’s word still exists – just as pure as the King said it would be. Earlier I said the Bible has the same things to say about both the Word of God and His word. The Bible says, “…the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word …And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken” (1 Pe 2:8; Is 8:15).

With that in mind, let’s see how born-again Christian scholars do when they dare to open their mouths and utter words against the word of God that they’ll hear again at Judgment. These are the kinds of “errors” people find only in the KJV: (For other KJV “errors” not covered in this chapter see Bible versions in the Index.)

Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

You don’t have to go far to find places in the Authorized Version that modern scholars think are errors. Ge 1:1 says heaven and Ge 2:1 says heavens. Modern scholars have changed Ge 1:1 to say heavens to make it agree with Ge 2:1 in every modern copyrighted Bible version, including the New King James Version. They did so because they were taught in Sunday school that Ge 1:1 is a broad statement introducing the seven-day creation of Ge 1:3 through Ge 2:3. And since Ge 2:1 and 2:4 say heavens, and since we know there are three heavens (2 Co 12:2), the singular heaven of Ge 1:1 seemed wrong to them. And they are unlikely to ever change their modern versions back to heaven because there is too much Bible study required on their part in order to straighten out their doctrines. Because this topic was covered in detail in chapter D4 I’ll just make a statement about translation committees: As expert as they are at the ins and outs of translation work, they – like most Enlightened Christians – don’t know much about the Lord God or His magnificent word.

All men who have ever blasphemed the Authorized Bible have always been losers who failed to prove an error exists. But that doesn’t stop people from foolishly teaching that the word of God doesn’t exist anywhere on earth today.

 

Ac 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

This verse brings us to another problem caused by Reason: How could Jesus have led the Jews across the Jordan into the Promised Land many centuries before He was born? All modern Bible versions, including the New King James, have changed Ac 7:45 to say Joshua, even though Dt 31:3a and b say both Jesus and Joshua were involved in the crossing. So where’s the error in the King James? And since the Bible gives Jesus Christ more glory and credit than Joshua for the crossing (Dt 31:6,8,20,21; 32:12), how can the modern versions claim to be more trustworthy and more accurate when they ignore the Scriptures that glorify our King and instead exalt man?

Note: Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization. A good indicator is Ac 7:45; if they’ve changed it to Joshua they’ve usually messed with the rest of it, too. If it says Jesus, it’s correct. Another clue that they’ve messed with the Authorized Version is 2 Ti 3:17. If the old spelling of throughly has been modernized to thoroughly it’s because some fool dared to go through the word of God and mess with it. Don’t get me wrong; the Bible shows that communication is the object of language – not spelling and grammar. But when somebody messes with the jots and tittles God put in His word and then lies by calling it a King James Bible it is an indication of how full his intestines are. Anyway, those two verses are usually the first ones to be changed in the rare instances that publishers mess with the KJV. If they are correct in your Bible you’ve got a good one.

 
E.R.R.O.R. VERSION ERRORS

Now we move on to errors in all the versions man produced. These errors conclusively prove modern versions absolutely cannot be called the word of God. I avoid examples that prey on your ignorance. For example, if you read some of the typical stuff put out by defenders of the KJV you’ll be given arguments like this:

“The New International Version attacks the deity of Christ in Romans 14:10,12, while the King James makes it clear that Jesus Christ is God.”

KJV Ro 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

KJV Ro 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

NIV Ro 14:10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.

NIV Ro 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

If you were to read that you might get all mad at the NIV. But we are not looking for differences between versions when searching for the true word of God; we are looking for errors. Those who point to the above verses as proof of the unsuitability of the modern versions, for example, hope you’ll never read a book that uses their same argument to prove the KJV attacks the deity of Christ in places like Ti 2:13 and 2 Pe 1:1 by making it less clear that Christ is God:

KJV Ti 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

NIV Ti 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope – the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

KJV 2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

NIV 2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

The same type of argument is made by many proponents of the KJV to show how the unauthorized versions “attack” the Lordship of Christ. They’ll show you verses in the King James that say “Lord Jesus” when those same verses in other versions merely say “Jesus.” But they won’t show you the verses in the King James that say “Jesus” when those same verses in modern versions say “Lord Jesus.” That kind of argument not only proves nothing, it looks deceitful. So keep that in mind as we look for real errors in Bible versions.

I’m going to use five versions in this quest for errors, the Authorized 1611 King James Version, the New International Version, the New King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Version. I believe they are good representations of what people are using out there. If you use some unauthorized version other than the ones here, don’t despair; you’ll find many of these same errors in your version because it, too, is merely the work of fallible scholars who did their best to accurately translate the errors of the corrupt ERROR manuscripts into yet another rendition of the same old leaven. Because of what God has taught us about His word we need to find but one error in a version to eliminate it from our search for His Book.

 

KJV Is 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

KJV Re 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

There is no problem with the above verses; the identity of each person is clear.

NIV Is 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

NIV Re 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Here the NIV has God contradicting Himself as to who is the morning star. Is there a conspiracy? No, the translators are good men doing the best they can with the ERROR manuscripts. Some will not view this as a significant error, but all will agree the reading in the KJV is superior.

 

It’s time for a pop quiz: Who killed Goliath? Let’s consult the KJV to see if your answer (David) is correct:

KJV 1 Sa 17:4,51 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span…Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

KJV 2 Sa 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

KJV 1 Ch 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.

There is no problem in the above verses about who killed Goliath. Every schoolboy knows David did. But let’s now consult the modern versions to see who they say killed Goliath:

NAS 1 Sa 17:4,51 Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span…Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.

NAS 2 Sa 21:19 And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gitite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

NAS 1 Ch 20:5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

The modern versions (except for the NKJV) have all three verses contradicting each other. The first says David killed Goliath, the second says Elhanan is the one who killed Goliath, and the third says Elhanan actually killed Goliath’s brother. With three contradictions of this kind we have established one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt – this version is not the word of God because it contains an error. We can’t prove which verse is wrong, but we do know they all cannot be right. Think about this: Those who worship the ERROR manuscripts as authorities, and those who use layman’s aids to “correct” the Bible, and those who use a modern version because they think it is “more reliable” and “more accurate” have no manuscript authority to say who killed Goliath! The ERROR manuscripts and the modern fruit/versions that come from them have just as much evidence to say Elhanan killed Goliath as they do David. Do you know why the majority of preachers and pewsters – those who revere the ERROR manuscripts and use unauthorized versions – do not go around preaching that, according to their versions, we shouldn’t be dogmatically saying David killed Goliath?  It’s because tradition is more of an authority in their lives than either their “Holy Bible” or their precious dead-language texts!

Blasphemous incongruities like that do not bother Christians who have no faith in God and His word. They’ve never spent five minutes looking for the inspired and infallible word of God because they don’t believe it exists. They are unbelievers. That’s why the errors we’re talking about in the ERROR manuscripts do not bother them. And, not knowing the word of God still exists, when they go shopping for a Bible version they want a modern version that “more accurately” preserves the errors and mindless inconsistencies of the ERROR manuscripts; they actually think the corrupt ERROR manuscripts are the “most trustworthy” source of God’s incorruptible truth on earth.

Let’s see if these modern unbelieving born-again Christians got the “faithful” translations they were looking for. Notice the words in italics in the KJV in 2 Sa 21:19. They are in italics because the translators added them under the inspiration of God. Those words are not in the Textus Receptus or any of the other ERROR manuscript families. Therefore, those who use the NIV and the other unauthorized versions (except for the NKJV) actually do have versions that accurately and faithfully preserve the corruption of the dead-language manuscripts. Yes, their versions are corrupt garbage and are not inspired by God, but from the perspective of humanistic scientific scholarship they are faithful translations of ERROR. God gave them what they wanted, but sent leanness into their soul (Ps 106:15). In other words, they are hoist on their own petard.

The fact that the Authorized King James is not a faithful translation of any manuscript or family of manuscripts turns out to be good. Anything that is different from the ERROR manuscripts at least has a chance of being the word of God. Remember, we can’t use differences to prove something is not the word of God; we have to find errors. All of the differences only prove the King James is different from the Textus Receptus, and things that are different are not the same. The Textus Receptus contradicts itself on who killed Goliath just like the modern versions do. So we know the Textus Receptus is not the word of God. The fact that the King James alone does not contradict itself in these verses doesn’t prove the King James is the word of God, but at least it’s still in the running because nothing it says – in italics or in regular type – has so far proven to be incorrect. ERROR manuscript worshippers will always try to get you to think anything the King James says that is different from the ERROR manuscripts is an error. But why, you ask, would any Christian in his right mind want a translation of corrupt manuscripts? That’s just it, they aren’t in their right mind; they’re in their carnal mind. It’s their pagan Greek religious doctrine talking; they are assuming no book on earth came from God because they have faith in Reason. They are humanists who ignore what God said He’d do with His word, and who blindly accept the proven corruption of the dead-language remnants as an “authority.” They are sinning because they are neither acting out of faith nor glorifying God in accordance with His word. And when they incorrectly Reason with you that Bible version arguments like mine – that are based on the premise that God and His word do exist in accordance with His word – are based on circular Reasoning, you should point out that you’d never turn your back on God by using their philosophy-based arguments. Point out to them that your argument is based on faith – not Reason. Your faith is in God and His word, and if they don’t like those pearls of wisdom they have your permission to go root in the mud, return to their vomit, or bark at garbage trucks. Let them know they have no hope of impressing you or God with their blasphemy and profanity. Our hope and our lives are based on God’s revelation; theirs are based on Reason from the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge.

In order to illustrate how and why Christians use differences between the Authorized Version and the ERROR manuscripts, I’ll relate an incident that happened when I paid a visit to a church up north. After the service when the pewsters had gone, the preacher, the deacons, and I hung around and had a free-flowing conversation about matters Christian. When they learned my beliefs about the Bible version issue it became the topic. The preacher quickly fell silent because it was evident he knew almost nothing about the issue. One of the deacons, however, was very vocal in his insistence that the word of God (as defined by God) no longer exists. When I countered by saying the KJV alone had no errors, he said it most certainly did have errors and he could prove it. As always, I called his bluff. Unlike the vast majority of Christians he did not respond to my challenge by saying, “Ah, well, I don’t know of any off the top of my head, but I read somewhere that it does have errors.” He said, “Open your Bible to Ro 8:1.”

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

“The second half of the verse,” he continued “that is, everything after Christ Jesus, has no manuscript authority; it doesn’t appear in any manuscript on earth. The King James translators simply added it. And they even neglected to admit they added it by putting it in italics.”

I looked at it for a moment and said, “Look at verse 4.”

Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

“Are you saying,” I asked, “the second half of verse 4, everything after in us, is an error?”

“No, it’s correct in verse 4, but it’s wrong in verse 1.”

“Are you saying you think we are condemned if we walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?”

“No, the information in verse 1 is doctrinally true. I’m just saying the second half of the verse shouldn’t be there because it has no manuscript authority.”

Let’s analyze this deacon:

1)    This is a minor point, but for the sake of accuracy I’ll mention it: He was wrong about it not being in any manuscripts. It is missing from most Bible versions (such as the NIV), but the footnote in the NIV, for example, says, “Some later manuscripts” add: who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. Why did I say it was a minor point? Isn’t this a big victory for the KJV? Doesn’t the fact that it does have manuscript authority cause us KJVers to breathe a sigh of relief? Negative! We couldn’t care less what some worthless piece of trash manuscript says or doesn’t say. The ERROR manuscripts are not authorities! The only Christian manuscript on earth with any authority is also the one with absolute authority: God’s Authorized 1611 King James Bible.

2)   This deacon has the same problem most brainwashed-by-the-world Christians have: He stupidly accepts old corrupt dead-language manuscripts as “authorities” over the incorruptible living word of God! Did anyone ever point at him and order, “You will worship the ERROR manuscripts as authoritative.”? No, he just Naturally assumed they should be the authority because that’s the way faithless morons always treat them.

3)   Because he wrongly accepts the ERROR manuscripts as authoritative, and because he does have a basic understanding of authority, he thinks anything that differs from the ERROR manuscripts is wrong. In order to become a good Christian he needs to make the infallible word of God the authority and eliminate the ERROR manuscripts from his thinking. Then his basic understanding of authority could blossom and he’d really become adamant about the inspired errorless authority of the AV1611 as he realized anything that differs from the AV1611 is wrong because the AV1611 alone is the word of God.

4)   If this guy were a wise Christian who walked circumspectly he’d be very careful about bad-mouthing something that even might be God’s Holy Bible. For example, even though he thinks he is correct about no manuscript authority for Ro 8:1, and even though he thinks the AV1611 is not the word of God, and even though he thinks the word of God doesn’t exist, he ought to have at least enough belief in and fear of God to keep his mouth shut just on the off chance that God really is as great as He says He is.

5)   Because he does not fear God, however, he has opened his foolish mouth and gotten himself in trouble: At Judgment he will be asked why he thought it was his Christian duty to God to try to convince me the word of God did not exist. He tried to get me to trust in the lie that no Bible on earth is the word of God. If you examine the context of Je 28:15,16 you’ll realize the deacon’s error is more egregious than that of Hananiah. Hananiah incorrectly thought the disagreeable message delivered by a mere fallible mortal they all grew up playing hide and seek with – Jeremiah – wasn’t the word of God, and he tried to convince others it wasn’t. Because of God’s authority, and because He demands absolute submission to His word, God says in v.16 Hananiah was teaching witchcraft! Once you’ve reviewed the context of the passage to verify that I’m correct, think about the deacon’s sin relative to Hananiah’s: Hananiah tried to convince Christians what Jeremiah said wasn’t the word of God. The deacon tried to convince me that nothing is the word of God! Talk about witchcraft – can you think of anything more wicked than undermining the one and only foundation for all of Christianity?! If the Bible is not the word of God Christianity ceases being The True Religion and becomes just another religion.

6)   When the Lord said a man’s foes shall be they of his own household (Mt 10:36), He was stating a reality found numerous times throughout His Bible. If you try to convince other Christians that the word of God does not exist, does God consider you a friend or a foe? Hmm?

After you study this chapter and get yourself a KJV and start studying it, you will find things in the KJV that seem wrong or contradictory. That will shake you up a bit and you’ll try to find a solution to the “problem.” After finding a number of solutions to different “problems” you’ll get better at evaluating “problems” and will see how most of them could possibly be explained. For example, one of the “problems” in all Bible versions is the amount of water held in the molten sea; was it two thousand or three thousand baths? Also, since the circumference of a circle is pi times the diameter, and 3.14 times a ten cubit diameter does not equal thirty cubits, isn’t this a provable error in the Bible?

1 Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

1 Ki 7:26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

2 Ch 4:5 And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

I don’t know the answers. But I do know some simple possibilities. Let’s tackle the mathematics first. The container was an handbreadth thick. That is thought to be roughly three inches. We know it had a brim around it like the brim of a cup, which means it could have flared out and down an unknown amount. We do not know where the thirty-cubit line was that compassed it: It could have been outside, or somewhere on the flared cup brim, or at the top inside edge of the brim, or down the inside some unknown distance to be a “fill to here” line or a “refill when level drops to here” line. Given the endless possibilities for how steeply sloped the bowl was along with all the above possibilities, we’ll never be able to figure out exactly what it looked like. But if you play with the numbers for a few of the possibilities like I did, you’ll find the circumference in the Bible is neither too big nor too small. We do know one thing for sure; the Lord knew some Christians would use this as an excuse to reject the authority of His word. No problem: He always intended His word to be a stumbling stone and a rock of offence to those of little faith.

What if the container held three thousand baths when filled to the brim, or when filled to the “fill to here” line? And if it held three thousand when at the brim couldn’t it have held two thousand when at the “fill to here” line? What if the brim was three thousand and the “refill when level drops to here” line was two thousand? I don’t think we need to expand on that any further, so let’s look at another “error” in the Bible.

2 Sa 24:9 …and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

1 Ch 21:5 …And they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

Some people point to these verses and say 800,000 men in Israel is not the same as 1,100,000 men, and 500,000 men in Judah is not the same as 470,000 men. A Christian who does not believe the word of God exists will, for some strange reason, look for ways to find errors in God’s word, and the differences in numbers are convenient targets. The man of faith, however, starts out accepting the fact that every single thing in the Bible is true. Therefore, when he reads these two verses, he thinks, “Whoa! What is this?” – just like anybody would. On the surface he sees the same “error” as the infidel. But he faithfully digs deeper and realizes that a closet with 12 shoes in it can be said to have 6 pairs of shoes and it can be said to have two pairs of white shoes. In other words, the more qualifiers you add to something the smaller the numbers generally get. Notice that of the two sets of numbers for Israel and Judah, both times when the number is smaller it also has more qualifiers attached to it. I love the consistency of God’s Book, don’t you? Obviously, “valiant men that drew the sword” could have meant seasoned veterans, and “men that drew the sword” could include veterans and new recruits with no combat experience. And just plain “men” could include even more categories such as civilians, reservists, noncombatants, etc. (Note: This example only applies to the KJV because some of the modern versions do not have the qualifiers and therefore make these verses look like errors. Stick with God’s word and you’ll have no problems.)

That’s the way a Bible believer reads the Book. If we accept the fact that God knows what He’s doing we’ll be very careful to find some way He could be right. If we fail to do that and blithely assume He didn’t preserve His holy word like He said He would, we’ll find out at Judgment He really does exalt His word above His name.

Now we shall continue looking at specific errors in modern Bible versions. And in every single case we are going to compare those unauthorized verses with the Authorized Version in order to prove it is not corrupt in those same places. That will not prove the AV1611 is the word of God; it will only prove all the others aren’t. Then, realizing the King James Bible is the only possibility left to be the true word of God, we are going to draw on the fact that we only started looking for the word of God in the first place because we accepted by faith that it exists, and we are by faith going to accept the AV1611 as God’s word given to us by the Authority of the King Himself.

 

RSV Mt 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

RSV Mk 3:5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

wordfilter test vs shadowbanned thread test. If this goes through then you mods are filtering a very edifying essay out of this board. Revoke the wordfilter that I may continue from here http://archiveiya74codqgiixo33q62qlrqtkgmcitqx5u2oeqnmn5bpcbiyd.onion/Zd2YX .
These are a very edifying series of essays and the original author of them I believe is dead and the archive websites are under attack/being shutdown. I'd like to have this backed up on the internet where people in cloudfare and google blocked countires may read such content.

I read this a couple days ago and have been thinking about it. While I use the KJV myself, and agree with most (if not all) of the author's points, I'm still left with the following question: What/where was the preserved word of God before the KJV was first completed?

>>26943
Just read any history on the compilation and canonization of the scriptures. There was a good lecture on the Septuagint especially with its deeper relationship with 2nd Temple literature in contrast with the much younger Masoretic text and its Talmudic influence. I have watched a number of lectures on the 2nd temple period, if I can find it, I will share it. I may have already placed the link in one of these threads a while back.

Interesting read. I had a pleasant time with it. The fruits of the "correct" Bible translation debates increase the understanding of the genealogies in 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 to include genealogies of any kind, including words.

The essay also reminds me of a time in some YouTube comments section where someone called upon the name and knowledge of a Biblical professor, in reputation among men, in an attempt to rebuke me. Over what, I do not remember. But I do remember responding with something like "What? Are the professors God now?"
They did not respond back.
That was a good day.
I am also chewing over the disgusting hypocrisy of those who apparently say "We must have errors, or the people will fall to idolatry by worshipping a book." but then say that their translation is the best, and everyone should follow it!

>>26944
So is the Septuagint the preserved word of God (at least in Greek)? What was the pre-KJV equivalent for the New Testament? Websites repeat that Martin Luther had issues with the Latin Vulgate, but they don't say what those issues were.

>>26954
I say yes the Septuagint has a greater claim to Masoretic text, even though both have matches with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Septuagint gives a better glimpse into the world view of 2nd Temple Israelite view over and above that of the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic text while being based on earlier hebrew texts was compiled later and and even leaves out important elements like the reason for Hanukkah which the Septuagint contains in Maccabees. Jews have to turn to the Talmud to find out the reason for the season. The Septuagint also never had issues with the genealogical dates in Genesis. As for the pre-KJV I can't remember all the specifics and I am work so I will attempt to answer again when I make it home.

>>26957
You can only say the Septuagint has a greater claim because it is not the preserved word of God in greek because it has the Elhanan killed goliath lie in 1 Chronicles 20:5.

>Christians have to turn to the Bablyonian Talmud to find out the reason for the season.
Why would a Jew turn to some pagan document over the preserved word of God?

>>26959
>You can only say the Septuagint has a greater claim because it is not the preserved word of God in greek because it has the Elhanan killed goliath lie in 1 Chronicles 20:5.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

>Christians have to turn to the Bablyonian Talmud to find out the reason for the season
I didn't say anything of the sort. Why are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said? Rabbinic Jews have to turn to the Talmud to find out the reason for Hanukkah.

>>26928 (OP) 
>I'm going to spam some essays

Cool. Go for it OP

>>26954
Attached is a PDF of the Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament. It is a translation based on the official Patriarchal text. I have the EOB at home as a reference, but it is not the Bible I read all the time. That being said, the introduction gives precious insight into the various texts and codices used over the centuries and the ones selected for this translation. I think it might help give you some food for thought on your question about the pre-KJV New Testament. I briefly skimmed over the PDF, which seems to contain everything but the appendices. They are also valuable, but they are mainly concerned with Orthodox positions. I will list them if you decide to pick up this version later. 

Appendix A: Acts 20:28 Presbyters and Bishops
Appendix B: Matthew 16:18 Church and Apostles
Appendix C: John 1:1,18 Jesus as 'God'
Appendix D: John 15:26 The Filioque Controversy
Appendix E: Mark 6:3 The 'Brothers' of the Lord
Appendix F: Mark 16:9-20 Mark's Endings
Appendix G: Luke 3:36 The Second Cainan Controversy

>>26963
Interesting. I just started reading it. I know you're just sharing it as a potential resource (and not, I think, because you believe every point in this translation) but the EOB seems pretty critical of the KJV:
>"Several versions of the King James Version (KJV) currently exist, but all suffer from the imperfections of the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus (1522, third edition) from a small number of manuscripts and revised by Stephanus (1550). Moreover, the Old Testament of the KJV is based on the Masoretic text and fails to include significant Septuagintal variants." pg. 10

Regarding the Greek text basis of their EOB translation:
>"This Greek text was prepared more than a hundred years ago, hence before the discovery of new manuscripts and before the development of textual criticism. For this reason, even though the Patriarchal text is primary for the main body of the EOB/NT, constant reference has been made to so-called Critical Text (CT) published by the United Bible Society (UBS/NA27 4th edition)." pg. 11
They're basing this translation on the 1904 PT Greek text that came out 23 years after the Wescott & Hort Greek NT, and it sounds like they would prefer the even newer Greek texts. All of this seems too new. Let's assume the Textus Receptus is the preserved word of God: If the Textus Receptus was first published in 1516, what was the "authorized version" of the first 1.5 millennia of Christianity?

This is a sincere question that I don't know the answer to (just in case this post comes across as argumentative).

>>26964
>If the Textus Receptus was first published in 1516
Did you not read the above essay? According to a source a wikipedia, not the above text which also mentions it, the recieved text grouping did not exist until 1633 and has been retroactively applied to Erasmus' works. Their source is "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration" 2005, p. 152
>>26960
Why are you deliberately misrepresenting an entire religion and its people? "rabbanic jews" of modern day are not jews according to the Bible see Romans 2:28-29
>For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
>But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
You did not answer my question, why would a Christian, a spiritual Jew, turn to the babylonian talmud for advice over the preserved word of the living God?

>>26965
You continue to misrepresent what I said on purpose. Never once did I say anything about Christians needing to read the Talmud, I said Rabbinic Jews did.  Never once did I say Rabbinic Jews and Israel are the same people. Again, you continue to deliberately misrepresent what I post and yet you demand me to answer your questions. What point is there to continue on with you, when you will just twist what I say around to suit you. As much as your focus is on Jews, you are definitely arguing like one.

>>26964
I suppose I should first ask what is it that you mean by "preserved word of God"? I just want to make sure that I am following your train of thought correctly.

>>26967
I suppose I don't know precisely how I define that, myself. Unless I'm mistaken, the above essay argues that the KJV is the only inspired translation, and that it differs from every Greek text (ancient or otherwise) that has survived. That would mean that for a long time (anywhere up-to 1600 years), Christians didn't have a copy of the NT without error, and that God did a special work in the KJV translators to restore his error-free word to humanity, which had been lost at some point in the past, leaving only copies containing errors. 

I suppose it's not preposterous. If you consider the hockey-stick-shaped graph of the historical global population, and English becoming the lingua franca of the world - God might've done so. Since God knows the future, he could've decided to inspire this English translation, knowing that English would become the common language of the world, and that at the world's most populous age.

>>26969
Do we need a copy that is completely without error? And what kind of error would invalidate? Translating between languages always creates some degree of error. So, Shakespearean English on its on is not sufficient to understand the meaning. After all the very word 'Atonement' had to be invented. Scripture prior to the printing press was used liturgically. In the East the Gospels and Epistles were and still are in separate tomes and used at different times during the liturgy. The Church sees holy scripture as the divinely inspired word of God written in the hands of men. The ultimate purpose of the written word of God is to reveal the Living Word of God. This can be done even if there are copyist or translation errors.

>>26966
>I said Rabbinic Jews did
Stop calling them jews, they are not jews. The khazarian descendents of the chaldeans residing in modern day babylon/fake israel are most certainly not Jews and it does a disservice to spiritual Jews, Christians, everywhere to call babylonians by such lies. Unless they also happen to be Christians at which point why would they be practicing levitical precepts like being rabbis for teaching?
>>26970
>Do we need a copy that is completely without error? And what kind of error would invalidate?
God can not lie Titus 1:2. Therefore if there is something that would make God a liar, an error, that would invalidate it being the word of God.
>The ultimate purpose of the written word of God is to reveal the Living Word of God. This can be done even if there are copyist or translation errors.
That is a lie. Witnessing is to be based on faith because anything not of faith is sin duh Romans 14:23. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God Romans 11:17. If we do not have the word of God as you propose, such as errors being acceptable, then it is impossible to have faith as its impossible to hear the word of God. Which means we are yet in sin.
Matthew 12:33
>Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

>>26971
>Stop calling them jews, they are not jews.
I'm not sure what your denomination is, so maybe that might be it, but I am not really following you. This is a side argument, so I won't spend long with this suffice to say that someone who follows the Talmud is a Rabbinic Jew. The Church is Israel, the Israel in the Old Testament, and Israel is the Church in the New Testament. Those Israelites at the time of the 2nd Temple and the Gentiles that came to be part of Israel from that time on still follow the faith of Adam, Abram, Isaac, and Jacob. Rabbinic Jews are not part of Israel; they are part of the Synagogue of Satan. That is where I will leave this.
>God can not lie
Correct, but Man can, and Man can make mistakes. Since we do not have the originals, is your position that God is consistently lying? 
>That is a lie. 
No. Scripture reveals and points to Christ, the Living Word of God. Salvation is about having a life in Christ, not finding the original Bible.

>>26969
>That would mean that for a long time (anywhere up-to 1600 years), Christians didn't have a copy of the NT without error
Wouldn't be anything new under the sun. After all, having the Christ and the prophets, yet erronously following after only what they wanted to hear out of the original Bible, a.k.a. the Living Word of God, a.k.a. Christ Jesus, is what most of ancient Israel does throughout most of the Old Testament.

>>26972
<Rabbinic Jews are not part of Israel
Your statement is a contradiction if it made any sense at all. Israel is defined in Genesis 32:28 as
>And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
So a descendent of Jacob is an Israelite, a son of Israel. Now read Genesis 14:13
>And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
So Abraham and his sons, such as Isaac and Jacob, are hebrews. All the sons of Jacob, Israelites, are hebrews. Israelites therefore are Jews due to Jeremiah 34:9
>That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.
Jew is used synonymously with Hebrew in this context. The only situation I can even dream up to justify your idiocy is someone who was a descendant of Ishmael but not a descendant of Isaac after the split between the people of God and the rest of the world with Jacob e.g Galatians 4:22-28. They would be a Hebrew but not a Israelite neccessarily. Atleast until Acts chapter 1 where it didn't matter again. Either way it is therefore impossible for a Jew to not be a descendent of Israel, spiritually or physically. It does not change that your falsely so called "rabbinic jews" can not trace their lineage back to Jacob. Hence why Christians are spiritually descended from Christ, as that's our lineage back to Jacob, through Christ, which makes us Israelites/Hebrews/Jews spiritually for the sake of inheriting the covenant and its promises. That's also why all the Christians born before Jacob also can inherit the promises like Abel and Noah in Hebrews 11:4,7. Anyhow i'm only humoring you two fools because I wanted to be specific on something those essay do not go in depth about; the kikels, the fake jews, those who say they are Jews but are not. You do know it is blasphemy to call one a Jew when they are not, right? Revelation 2:9
>I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

>>26974
A whole lot gibberish for saying nothing at all. I am not convinced by your arguments and will continue on using Israel for the Church and Rabbinc Judaism for the synagogue of satan.

>>26975
If you are not convinced by the word of God in Hebrews 11 that Abel and Noah and Abraham are saved. How do you justify writing thus?
>that came to be part of Israel from that time on still follow the faith of Adam, Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.
If you were serious in your conversation you would be saying "follow the faith in Jesus Christ." Further more "Judaism" is not a word in the word of God it is a word the kikels, specifically the IDF, invented to confuse people. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "Judaism" could you clarify what you are talking about? Preferably with Biblical sources

>>26976
You are putting words in my mouth in again. Following the faith is following Christ, the head of the Church, Israel. I have said that multiple times. Maybe this might benefit you.
https://rumble.com/v240ex6-marching-to-zion.html