June 22, 2004
Lord, please give me words to speak. Be with me continually, constantly throughout every day. Reveal Yourself to me. I pray that You would help me to grow, tall and strong in my faith, in my relationship with You. I pray that You would turn me into a blessing to all I meet. Mold me into Your wonderful creation. I came from dust, You gave me the breath of life, but I am still just clay. Take me away to be with You every day. Fill me up to overflowing with the desire to be with You constantly. Keep my eyes on You. Make me like the girl in the song:
“They say she is loved by the greatest of all who has walked in this world. He lives far away still she spends all her days content with only His words. She often walks alone, but never is she lonely. You can offer her anything her affections are all for Him only. All the day long she sings sweetly, she says He speaks to her mind. She’s only rich with affliction, but a bitter word you won’t find. She lives with assurance He loves her to deeply to let such distance remain. She looks to the sky as if He is coming down from the clouds up above. She’s brimming with longing for Him to come calling and sweep her away. She often walks alone, but never is she lonely. You can offer her anything, her affections are all for Him only.”
Lord, I do long for You to come and take me away to be with You. But I cannot know when that will be, so, please, Lord Jesus, please, make me as close as I can be to You while on this earth. This is my desire, and You said, "He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He also will hear their cry and save them." I pray that You would teach me to fear You properly. Teach me to know Your will, for I know that if the desire of my heart is in Your will, it is certain to be fulfilled!
You are chipping away at me daily. It can be painful and irritating. But just as a diamond, I must be brought down in size, the blackness melted away, and cut to shape in order to be perfect. Take me to You, in the Holy of Holies. Take me to You, where I can lay my heart before You so that it may be free of iniquity. Take me to You, so that I may know Your will and do great work for Your kingdom. Thank You, dear Jesus. Thank You so much.
In Jesus' Precious Name above all names, I pray these things, Amen.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
The Satanic Influence
Most people don't think about the subject of Satanism unless there is a grizzly murder, and satanic symbols are found at the crime scene. Many who believe in the devil, usually think of him as being the darkest of figures. What they don't realize is that the Bible tells us that he can also manifest himself as an "angel of light." In reference to false converts within the Church, the Bible says:
For such men are false apostles [spurious, counterfeits], deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles (special messengers) of Christ . . . And it is no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light; So it is not surprising if his servants also masquerade as ministers of righteousness... 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (Amplified Bible)
Satan is incredibly subtle. We are warned that he uses professing men of God (ministers of righteousness) to deceive the Church. The Bible calls him "the god of this world," and says that he blinds the minds of unbelievers. Jesus called him "the prince of this world," and "the father of lies."
The Scriptures continually warn the Church against his wiles (his methods), using words such as "be not deceived," and telling us to "be vigilant." Well, has our Satan had any influence on you and me? Is there any deception with the Church? That's what we are going to look at closely. We are going to look at perhaps the greatest and most subtle of Satan's deceptions.
You may not be familiar with the story Jesus told of the Prodigal Son, so let's take a moment to consider what it says. The Prodigal Son asked his father for his inheritance, then went into a far country and spent all his cash on parties and prostitutes. He enjoyed "the pleasures of sin." But after a famine hit the land, his money ran out, and the only job he could get was feeding pigs. He became so hungry that he found himself desiring the food that the pigs were eating.
Suddenly, he "came to himself"--he came to his senses. Realizing that even his father's servants had it better than he did, he decided to return and say, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight. Take me on as a hired servant." So he got up out of the pigsty and went back to his father.
His father was looking for his son's return, and the Bible says that "he saw him while he was yet a great way off." He ran to his son, fell upon him, kissed him, and rejoiced that he had returned. He freely forgave him and returned him to his former state.
This is a picture of every person before they come to Christ. We turned from God to serve the devil and the pleasures of sin. The Bible says that there is a "spirit" that works in the children of disobedience. 1 John 3:8 says "He that commits sin is of the devil..." Jesus even told the religious hypocrites of His day that their father was the devil:
You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Unsaved people live in the Kingdom of Darkness. It's as simple as this, if we are serving sin, we are serving Satan. Our appetites are unclean. We desire pig food. Consider what we crave. Think of the contents of the average soap opera or prime time television show --adultery, jealously, lust, fornication, rape, gossip, and greed. Or the average movie today with its violence, filthy language, explicit sex, and graphic murder.
Look at the covers of magazines in bookstores and supermarkets. They are "soft-core" pornography, which a few years ago was considered hard-core and hidden from young eyes. Think of video games that kids crave--they are extremely violent and sexually perverted. Think of most rock music, with its explicit sexuality, its blasphemy, and its dark Satanic side. Consider the Internet's multi-billion dollar hard-core porn industry, or how the average person uses filthy words and blasphemy in every day speech. Life in the dirty pigsty is normal, natural, and completely acceptable.
Yes, Satan is the god of this world, and he has deceived millions. But his deception hasn't stopped there. It has moved into the Church. Despite what the Bible says, that Satan is real, that he's a deceiver, and the god of this world who blinds minds, look at what has happened--according to the Barna Research Group:
In 2004, an incredible 50% of those who profess to be "born again" actually deny Satan's existence.
That's unbelievable! Despite the revelation of Scripture, 50% of those who profess to be born again actually deny Satan's existence. And the scary thing about denying Satan, is that if you deny that he exists, you let your guard down--you let him bring in deception. The place to corrupt the Church is at the point of entry... to poison evangelistic message that brings people into the Kingdom of God.
That's what has happened. We haven't been vigilant. We have allowed Satan to contaminate the biblical method of evangelism. We have allowed certain "ministers of righteousness" within the Church to move away from Scripture. They refuse to use the Law (the Ten Commandments) to bring the knowledge of sin (as Jesus did), and show sin to "be exceedingly sinful." This is despite the fact that even the Apostle Paul said that he didn't know what sin was without the Law. They say that they have found a shortcut to bring people to salvation. They leave out the Law and instead take the prodigal back to the father, without showing him that his appetites are unclean.
Remember that in the story Jesus told, the prodigal "came to his senses" when he realized that he desired pig food. That's what made him want to go back to his father and say "I have sinned against heaven and in yours sight, make me your hired servant." In the name of sensitivity, modern preachers don't let that happen. They shortcut that process. So instead of the professed convert saying to the Father "I have sinned against Heaven. Make me your servant," he goes to God and says, "I have run out of money. Give me some more. You be my servant."
And that's what's wrong with the modern church. It is filled with unconverted people who have never seen that their sinful appetites are unclean. Modern preachers have left out the Law, and so we have multitudes in pulpits and in pews who don't see sin as exceedingly sinful. So they look on God as their servant. Instead of saying, "Make me your servant," they say "Give me more!"
Aleister Crowley (who died in 1947), is considered to be the father of modern Satanism. In his publication called, The Book of the Law, he sums up the essence of Satanism. It is: "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
And that sums up the desires of many who profess to have faith in Jesus Christ. Their lack of concern for the lost shows that something is radically wrong. They have never given up their selfish will, and cried, "Not my will but Yours be done." They have never sought to serve God by doing His will by reaching out to the unsaved.
Remember that Bill Bright said that only 2% of the contemporary church in American share their faith regularly with others. All they want is what they can get from God--health, wealth and prosperity. Listen to most modern preaching. It caters to nothing but selfishness. It's self seeking, self serving, and self-centered. The modern church has become the last days Laodicean church, who says that it's rich and in need of nothing, but it is in truth, poor, blind, wretched, miserable and naked.
How can this great multitude be awakened to this deception? Simply by helping them look into the mirror--by seeing themselves under the light of God's Law--the Ten Commandments.
Every professing Christian should obey the admonition to "Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith." But many won't. They think they are saved because they call Jesus Lord, and do miracles in His name. They will wait until the Day of Judgment and cry "Lord, Lord, we did many wonderful works in your name," and Jesus will say to them, "Depart from Me. You worker of Lawlessness. I never knew you." They are still in their sins.
Martin Luther said, "The first duty of the gospel preacher is to declare God's Law and show the nature of sin." Then he said, "This now is the Christian teaching and preaching, which God be praised, we know and possess, and it is not necessary at present to develop it further, but only to offer the admonition that it be maintained in Christendom with all diligence. For Satan has attacked it hard and strong from the beginning until present, and gladly would he completely extinguish it and tread it under foot."
After the Apostle Paul was converted on the Road to Damascus, Jesus said to him,
"But rise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness . . . To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins . . . "Acts 16-18
"But rise, and stand upon your feet: for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness . . . To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins . . . "Acts 16-18
If you know this same Jesus, you too have the same commission--"to open their eyes, and to turn [sinners] from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins..." The way to do that is to do it the way Paul did it. The way Jesus did it. Learn to follow the biblical method of using the Law (the Ten Commandments) to show why this sinful world why they need the Savior.
Ray Comfort
Click here to read other editions of Ray's monthly column.
Click here to learn how you can add his column to your website
Click here to learn how you can add his column to your website
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Question and Answer
Q/A from The Berean Call - January, 1995 - Dave Hunt
Question:
Dave, you have been accused lately of undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word because you don't insist upon using the King James Version exclusively. How do you respond to such indictments?
Answer:
I will publicly defend God's truth and expose false doctrine regardless of who teaches it, without judging hearts and motives. Heresy that is taught publicly must be opposed publicly. But I will not publicly defend myself in response to personal attacks against me, no matter how vicious and false-and there have been some lately. In obedience to Christ I am obliged to pursue Matthew 18:15-17 privately with individuals who make false charges (though publicly) against me personally, and I have done so.
As for undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word, the falsity of such charges should be apparent to anyone who has read my writings or listened to my talks. Anyone with doubts may read the chapter on Sola Scripture in my latest book, A Woman Rides the Beast, or listen to the tape of my debate with Karl Heating on that same subject, or the five-tape series of messages I preached on the sufficiency, inerrancy and authority of God's Word. Nor is it true that I defend the modern versions and run down the King James Version. I have been living in the KJV for more than 50 years and it is the KJV which I use when I preach and teach. The record speaks for itself. In the past, on occasion, I have quoted a modern version in my books where it seemed to be more understandable to the average reader, particularly the non-Christian.
As for the KJV-only debate, I hesitate to step into that arena because whatever one says only seems to heighten the controversy. However, we have received so much mail on this topic, reflecting confusion from both sides, that I will try once again to bring some balance where I believe it is badly needed. Where doctrinal purity is not involved, we need to respect one another's sincere differences of opinion. We must disagree courteously and in love and deal with the issues rather than attack persons or motives. There are godly and sincere people on both sides of this controversy.
Let both sides remember that all versions are translations. For the KJV to be perfect in every word, the translators must have had the same infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their translating as those who wrote the original Greek and Hebrew documents (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:21) had in their writing. Claiming such inspiration for the KJV's translators, some KJV-only advocates even denounce all other translations as New Age or of the Devil. Yet the King James Bible translators themselves, far from claiming inspiration or perfection, confessed that they had consulted other "translators and commentators" to improve their work. They acknowledged that the KJV was not perfect but could be improved, and that there were places where they were uncertain of the exact meaning of some words. They even recommended consulting a variety of translations. Why should I be castigated for agreeing with the KJV translators? The following is from the introduction to the 1611 KJV, titled "The Transla tors to the Reader" (note that in seventeenth- century English the "u" and "v" were reversed):
Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps....Neither did we thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered...vsing as great helps as were needfull....
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.
So the KJV translators themselves disagree with those who claim inspiration and inerrancy for the KJV. They admit their own fallibility, the imperfection of their KJV translation, give alternate readings in the margin and recommend consulting a variety of translations! This is only logical. If, as some insist, the KJV is the perfect translation and all others are of the Devil, then the Spanish, German, French, etc. Bibles are not the Bible either! The whole world must learn seventeenth century English and read the 1611 KJV if they would have God's Word. Nor could anyone refer back to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV; for to do so in order to be more certain of the exact meaning would be to suggest that the KJV was not perfect after all. The unreasonableness of that view is obvious.
In fact, the KJV translators take up many pages of their introduction arguing that the Bible needs to be in every language so that all may read it in their "mother tongue" and thus understand it better. That fact, they say, is the justification for their labors to put it into the daily language of their countrymen. These men even argued that "the very worst translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...is the word of God." How far they were from what some are claiming today! Of course, the KJV translators had not encountered the deliberately perverted translations of today's cults.
They were confident that while the many translations in English or other languages differed on some words and phrases, no doctrine was affected. (Doctrine is affected, however, in today's perverted versions such as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version, and a few others.) Thus, to tell the millions of people who were saved through reading the NAS or NIV, for example, and who are edified and growing in faith through daily study of such versions that they are using the Devil's false Bibles, is, in my opinion, extremism and only causes division and confusion. Rather, suggest consulting the KJV as well.
I was reared on the KJV and use it exclusively in all my study and speaking, only rarely consulting other translations for comparison. Why consult other translations at all? The KJV translators did so and recommended the practice! In following their advice we discover that, whereas in some places modern versions are deficient, in other places they excel. For example, the KJV at 2 Thes 2:2 says not to be troubled by rumors that "the day of Christ is at hand." If one believes in a pre-trib rapture which marks the beginning of the Day of Christ, then it is not disturbing but good news if that day is "at hand." Nor need that be disturbing even if one believes in a mid- or post-trib rapture. It would only be disturbing if the day of the Lord had already come, for that would mean one had been left behind at the rapture-which is why it is obvious that Paul had taught a pre-trib rapture to these people. The KJV 1611 edition had many marginal notes elsewhere, but none here. One was added late r: both the Greek and common sense required it. Today's KJV margin suggests "is now present." That changes the meaning entirely, makes sense, and admits that the 1611 edition wasn't perfect. The NAS reads "that the day of the Lord has come," and the NIV, "has already come." So a required later revision (one of many) in the KJV shows that the 1611 edition was not "inspired"-and the revision agrees with the NAS, the NIV and the NKJV!
Furthermore, some modern versions excel in places, even when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ. For example, there are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jn l:l, Acts20:28; Rom9:5; 2Thes 1:12; Ti 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8. The KJV is only clear in four of these (Jn 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom 9 :5 and Heb 1:8), whereas the NAS and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Ti 2:13; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8) For example, in Ti 2:13 the KJV says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," while both the NAS and NIV say "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," certainly a more definite declaration that Jesus is God. In 2 Pt 1:1 the KJV says "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," whereas again both the NAS and NIV say "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Actually that's what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek-the KJV translators simply made a mistake, which was corrected in the NKJV as well.) At Rv 1:8 the KJV says "the Lord," wh ereas the NAS and NIV say "the Lord God," clearly declaring that Jesus is God.
If the situation were the other way around (i.e., the KJV clearly declared Christ to be God in seven of the eight places and the modern versions in only four), some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of downplaying Christ's deity. Instead, they ignore the weaknesses in the KJV while jumping on those in other versions. It is surely helpful to the church to have the deficiencies in modern versions pointed out, and those using them should beware of such improper renderings . At the same time, however, those championing the KJV should honestly acknowledge those places where the modern versions excel.
The fact is that the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and NIV (in spite of some failings in each) clearly teach that Jesus is God, one with the Father; and all four clearly present the gospel and all of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible if one reads the entire text and doesn't take an isolated verse here or there to prove a point. Therefore, to suggest that the NAS and NIV are "the Devil's Bibles" and part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a oneworld religion by destroying God's Word is simply not true and places an unwarranted condemnation upon those who use such versions. Tragically, this faulty perception is causing confusion and division in the church. We must repeat our earlier warning that Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, is literally filled with errors and cannot be relied upon as a defense of the KJV. She even lumps the NKJV in with modern versions, whereas it is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 King James Version.
Question:
Dave, you have been accused lately of undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word because you don't insist upon using the King James Version exclusively. How do you respond to such indictments?
Answer:
I will publicly defend God's truth and expose false doctrine regardless of who teaches it, without judging hearts and motives. Heresy that is taught publicly must be opposed publicly. But I will not publicly defend myself in response to personal attacks against me, no matter how vicious and false-and there have been some lately. In obedience to Christ I am obliged to pursue Matthew 18:15-17 privately with individuals who make false charges (though publicly) against me personally, and I have done so.
As for undermining the Bible and opposing the authority of God's Word, the falsity of such charges should be apparent to anyone who has read my writings or listened to my talks. Anyone with doubts may read the chapter on Sola Scripture in my latest book, A Woman Rides the Beast, or listen to the tape of my debate with Karl Heating on that same subject, or the five-tape series of messages I preached on the sufficiency, inerrancy and authority of God's Word. Nor is it true that I defend the modern versions and run down the King James Version. I have been living in the KJV for more than 50 years and it is the KJV which I use when I preach and teach. The record speaks for itself. In the past, on occasion, I have quoted a modern version in my books where it seemed to be more understandable to the average reader, particularly the non-Christian.
As for the KJV-only debate, I hesitate to step into that arena because whatever one says only seems to heighten the controversy. However, we have received so much mail on this topic, reflecting confusion from both sides, that I will try once again to bring some balance where I believe it is badly needed. Where doctrinal purity is not involved, we need to respect one another's sincere differences of opinion. We must disagree courteously and in love and deal with the issues rather than attack persons or motives. There are godly and sincere people on both sides of this controversy.
Let both sides remember that all versions are translations. For the KJV to be perfect in every word, the translators must have had the same infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their translating as those who wrote the original Greek and Hebrew documents (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pe 1:21) had in their writing. Claiming such inspiration for the KJV's translators, some KJV-only advocates even denounce all other translations as New Age or of the Devil. Yet the King James Bible translators themselves, far from claiming inspiration or perfection, confessed that they had consulted other "translators and commentators" to improve their work. They acknowledged that the KJV was not perfect but could be improved, and that there were places where they were uncertain of the exact meaning of some words. They even recommended consulting a variety of translations. Why should I be castigated for agreeing with the KJV translators? The following is from the introduction to the 1611 KJV, titled "The Transla tors to the Reader" (note that in seventeenth- century English the "u" and "v" were reversed):
Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps....Neither did we thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered...vsing as great helps as were needfull....
Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the tex t is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.
So the KJV translators themselves disagree with those who claim inspiration and inerrancy for the KJV. They admit their own fallibility, the imperfection of their KJV translation, give alternate readings in the margin and recommend consulting a variety of translations! This is only logical. If, as some insist, the KJV is the perfect translation and all others are of the Devil, then the Spanish, German, French, etc. Bibles are not the Bible either! The whole world must learn seventeenth century English and read the 1611 KJV if they would have God's Word. Nor could anyone refer back to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV; for to do so in order to be more certain of the exact meaning would be to suggest that the KJV was not perfect after all. The unreasonableness of that view is obvious.
In fact, the KJV translators take up many pages of their introduction arguing that the Bible needs to be in every language so that all may read it in their "mother tongue" and thus understand it better. That fact, they say, is the justification for their labors to put it into the daily language of their countrymen. These men even argued that "the very worst translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession...is the word of God." How far they were from what some are claiming today! Of course, the KJV translators had not encountered the deliberately perverted translations of today's cults.
They were confident that while the many translations in English or other languages differed on some words and phrases, no doctrine was affected. (Doctrine is affected, however, in today's perverted versions such as the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version, and a few others.) Thus, to tell the millions of people who were saved through reading the NAS or NIV, for example, and who are edified and growing in faith through daily study of such versions that they are using the Devil's false Bibles, is, in my opinion, extremism and only causes division and confusion. Rather, suggest consulting the KJV as well.
I was reared on the KJV and use it exclusively in all my study and speaking, only rarely consulting other translations for comparison. Why consult other translations at all? The KJV translators did so and recommended the practice! In following their advice we discover that, whereas in some places modern versions are deficient, in other places they excel. For example, the KJV at 2 Thes 2:2 says not to be troubled by rumors that "the day of Christ is at hand." If one believes in a pre-trib rapture which marks the beginning of the Day of Christ, then it is not disturbing but good news if that day is "at hand." Nor need that be disturbing even if one believes in a mid- or post-trib rapture. It would only be disturbing if the day of the Lord had already come, for that would mean one had been left behind at the rapture-which is why it is obvious that Paul had taught a pre-trib rapture to these people. The KJV 1611 edition had many marginal notes elsewhere, but none here. One was added late r: both the Greek and common sense required it. Today's KJV margin suggests "is now present." That changes the meaning entirely, makes sense, and admits that the 1611 edition wasn't perfect. The NAS reads "that the day of the Lord has come," and the NIV, "has already come." So a required later revision (one of many) in the KJV shows that the 1611 edition was not "inspired"-and the revision agrees with the NAS, the NIV and the NKJV!
Furthermore, some modern versions excel in places, even when it comes to declaring the deity of Christ. For example, there are eight verses in the New Testament that clearly declare that Jesus is God: Jn l:l, Acts20:28; Rom9:5; 2Thes 1:12; Ti 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8. The KJV is only clear in four of these (Jn 1:1; Acts 20:28; Rom 9 :5 and Heb 1:8), whereas the NAS and NIV are clear in seven of the eight (the same four plus Ti 2:13; 2 Pt 1:1 and Rv 1:8) For example, in Ti 2:13 the KJV says "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," while both the NAS and NIV say "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," certainly a more definite declaration that Jesus is God. In 2 Pt 1:1 the KJV says "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," whereas again both the NAS and NIV say "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (Actually that's what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek-the KJV translators simply made a mistake, which was corrected in the NKJV as well.) At Rv 1:8 the KJV says "the Lord," wh ereas the NAS and NIV say "the Lord God," clearly declaring that Jesus is God.
If the situation were the other way around (i.e., the KJV clearly declared Christ to be God in seven of the eight places and the modern versions in only four), some KJV-only advocates would surely accuse the modern versions of downplaying Christ's deity. Instead, they ignore the weaknesses in the KJV while jumping on those in other versions. It is surely helpful to the church to have the deficiencies in modern versions pointed out, and those using them should beware of such improper renderings . At the same time, however, those championing the KJV should honestly acknowledge those places where the modern versions excel.
The fact is that the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and NIV (in spite of some failings in each) clearly teach that Jesus is God, one with the Father; and all four clearly present the gospel and all of the other cardinal doctrines of the Bible if one reads the entire text and doesn't take an isolated verse here or there to prove a point. Therefore, to suggest that the NAS and NIV are "the Devil's Bibles" and part of a New Age conspiracy to usher in a oneworld religion by destroying God's Word is simply not true and places an unwarranted condemnation upon those who use such versions. Tragically, this faulty perception is causing confusion and division in the church. We must repeat our earlier warning that Gail Riplinger's book, New Age Bible Versions, is literally filled with errors and cannot be relied upon as a defense of the KJV. She even lumps the NKJV in with modern versions, whereas it is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the 1611 King James Version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
