What churchianity Christians fear
What do churchianity Christians fear? Regeneration. Why? Because it entails separation. Real separation. The kind of separation that makes one a target in the Kingdom of Satan.
With regeneration comes friction. Friction with the world. Friction with the devil. Friction with one's inner 'Old Man' nature. And even friction with God, who will test His own.
How is regeneration effected? Regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit.
So how do churchianity Christians avoid regeneration? They exalt ritual and man above the Word and the Spirit. And even the ones who don't go as far as Romanists with their ritual safeguard themselves from potential regeneration by substituting 'bibles' that have the authority of man in them rather than the received Word of God that has the authority of God within it.
One doesn't have to humble oneself to a man-constructed and approved 'bible.' One does have to humble oneself to recognize and accept the pure and whole received Word of God, because the pure and whole received Word of God is above one.
You aren't regenerate until you can discern the voice of the Shepherd and not desire to run from it, and you are not regenerate until you can fear God solely and not man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. When you cling to the authority of scholars - man - regarding the Word of God, and reject, and even mock, the pure and whole received Word of God you are one who fears and reveres man more than you fear and revere God.
Notice how critical text scholars mirror exactly Darwinian evolutionists in their demands and assertions and their emotional reactions when confronted. It's the same in both cases: these are people who refuse to give up their vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will at all cost and refuse to recognize anything higher than them. They consider God and His Word the enemy to their 'freedom' (their Satanically induced illusion of freedom).
When a churchianity Christian justifies their state by describing how they have helped people I ask: what kind of help is more meaningful than giving a person the pure Word of God boldly and without fear of man so that the seed of the living Word of God is implanted in them so as to potentially grow (regenerate, quicken, them) by the grace of God? Churchianity Christians don't do this. They give 'sermons.' They talk of 'family.' They engage in ritual. If they do ever get around to actually proclaiming the Word of God minus their asinine sermonizing they read from the devil's manuscripts (approved by man) and do anything with it other than proclaim it as if it is inspired truth.
Yes, church Christians, when you begin to awaken the world gets real depressing, perhaps scary! It's a prison. It's the Kingdom of Satan. And you find yourself in spiritual warfare! Who needs that? Just pretend to be Christians and live smug in your Village of Morality pretending you aren't dead asleep tame slaves of the devil in the bondage and darkness of his kingdom of death. No. Pick up your Sword and shield and start fearing God alone. This is real faith talking: when you fear God alone and not man you become a dangerous figure on the landscape of the world; expect war - rejoice in it - and fight like a king.
14 Comments:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
I'm just curious . . . can you give a reason(s) why you feel that the Textus Receptus should be "the standard" for NT Greek manuscripts? Unless you can demonstrate that it should, all of your rants are completely baseless.
c.t., if I may ask a similar question, but more specific (since hurling blanket statements about the TR vs Alexandrian at each other won't get us anywhere).
With regards to Revelation 16:5 (kjv: "...which art, and wast, and shalt be...", nasb: "...who are and who were, O Holy One..."). Teddy Beza made this change in the 16th century. Before that, such a reading did not exist anywhere. This is just a plain, simple fact.
The only time to mistrust academia is when they *interpret* facts, but here they are just *presenting* it. This is not academic theology fouling the Bible with a postmodern, naturalistic, licentious, ecu-manaical, social gospel interpretation - it is an acknowledgment of an historical fact.
How can you deny this simple fact? You must *do* something with this bare fact, but you cannot *deny* it.
And why is it so important? the KJV isn't denying God is holy and the NASB isn't denying God will exist in the future.
There is the received traditional text, and there is the man-constructed text. Which is the text with the authority of God in it? The one your Adamic nature most refuses to accept.
When you are in a state of active vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will discern what 'it' doesn't like. 'It' being your Old Man, Adamic nature. Your Adamic nature doesn't like what has God's authority in it. Your Adamic nature is very comfortable with things that have man's authority in it.
This is the subject of regeneration. The living Word of God is not something scholars 'discover' and construct. The Reformation didn't pull the received traditional text out of thin air. It's the text God preserved and God's own shepherded through time and history, persecution and martyrdom. It is the light that appeared after the darkness of Romanist, anti-Christ tyranny.
On the second comment above: one thing critical text champions refuse to do is to take note specifically of the types and patterns of corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts. The types and patterns of corruption. When you discuss them one by one in isolation you allow yourself to be shielded from the rank corruption of those manuscripts and the versions based on them. When you look at the types and patters of the corruptions in whole rather than in part you have no excuse when you still hold to the Alexandrian manuscripts.
One reason Gail Riplinger was so quickly and savagely smeared and mocked and successfully kept out of any mainstream environment by this policing using the fear of man is her book particularly focuses on the types and patterns of corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts and the modern version based on them. This is something critical text scholars can't defend themselves against, so the resort to mocking and smearing and sophistry and fallacious rhetoric, and the intensity of it. It was for their very survival.
She wasn't the first to do this, and she's easy to make fun of for side issues, but she was particularly thorough in giving the whole picture of the types and patterns of corruption, thus she had to be directly attacked by the devil's kingdom. Yes, this is spiritual warfare. The Word of God is the foundation of the faith.
Read my post again; the subject is regeneration.
Yep . . . that's what I thought -- more baseless assertions. If you're going to continue your TR worship/rants in every post, you should really consider learning about the issues surrounding the available Greek manuscript evidence and textual criticism. That way, you can at least provide an educated reason why the TR should be considered the standard. Thanks anyway.
You aren't regenerate until you can discern the voice of the Shepherd and not desire to run from it, and you are not regenerate until you can fear God solely and not man. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. When you cling to the authority of scholars - man - regarding the Word of God, and reject, and even mock, the pure and whole received Word of God you are one who fears and reveres man more than you fear and revere God.
This is obviously true when people dislike masculine pronouns (TNIV) or the concept of the Trinity (NWT). But there is a subtlety here - once enscripturation was done, the Shepherd chose to spread his Voice via human scribes, not computers, not by automatic writing. I would submit to you the voice of the shepherd can come to us speaking a uniform message, even though individual manuscripts contain identifiable copyist errors . I've never heard a convincing refutation to the observation that removing a verse from one book does not change the overall message as long as it's in another (ex. 'Take up thy cross, etc.).
she was particularly thorough in giving the whole picture of the types and patterns of corruption
Interesting point- *if* she can demonstrate that at least a few of the Alexandrian variants are truly corrupt (as opposed to being mistakes or original readings), then if all other variants fall into similar patterns and types, she might actually have a case. Glad there is at least some sort of reasonable impulse behind this movement.
The legitimacy of the received Word of God is not a subject of debate among Christians with the Spirit of discernment and truth. You might as well think you can win one of God's elect over to the Kingdom of Satan via debate.
Try to see that you have adopted the position of counter-Reformation Jesuits hook, line, and sinker.
Again, it's a matter of regeneration. Put simply: if you are not absolutely new to the issue and you hold to the man-constructed Alexandrian manuscript versions you are not a regenerated-by-the-grace-of-God Christian. You need to humble yourself to God's Word and ask God to send the Holy Spirit into your heart. You can't do this currently because you are puffed up with the vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will of your Adamic nature which leads you to fear and revere man more than God, and to hold to the authority of man more than the authority of God.
I'm not exactly new to the issue, but I never read NABV - I guess I'll give it a chance. The following happened to me a few day ago. On a de-conversion blog, someone wrote:
"I am not an athiest — but I fear that I am being driven in that direction by clergymen who really don’t care a damn which way my belief or unbelief goes. For instance, St.Peter very clearly stated that Jesus did not rise in the body — he did so in the spirit (see 1Peter 3:18). Nobody in the clergy, or out of it, has been able to explain St.Peter’s words to me. In fact, they are just not interested because, as I believe, St.Peter is upsetting their apple cart."
I replied:
"And what is your beef with 1 Pe 3:18? he was “quickened *by* the Spirit”, not quickened *as* a Spirit. Not even the most desperate Gnostic ... would try to use this as a proof text."
He replied:
"My Bible is the New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition). My Bible quotes Peter as saying, very clearly indeed, that Jesus Christ “WAS PUT TO DEATH IN THE FLESH, BUT MADE ALIVE IN THE SPIRIT”. The “s” for the word “spirit” is, incidentally, in lower case — which infers that reference was NOT being made to the Holy Spirit. Peter was unambiguously saying that Jesus’ “spirit” and not “flesh” rose from the dead. And let me point out that I am not supporting Peter’s version — all I’m doing is seeking an explanation. After all, the entire Bible (including Peter’s letter) was inspired by God — so why such contradictions ???"
ta for now.
This is an excellent example. Look at how the NASB renders it:
having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
Also the ESV:
being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Now look at an example of the ever-changing (in the direction of corruption) aspect of Critical Text versions:
Here is the New International Version:
He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
Now here is the Today's New International Version:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
In the next edition no doubt they'll lose that capital S.
Look how the Holman Christian Standard Bible has it:
after being put to death in the fleshly realm but made alive in the spiritual realm.
This is the chaos and poison the devil successfully slipped into the well in the 19th century, but God's own know the received Word and won't - can't - be fooled. The battle will wage until the return of the King. I would say to any reading this: what side of the battle line are you on?
Also, that one example above of 1 Peter 3:18 is not isolated. It is part of a type and pattern of corruption of the Alexandrian manuscripts. In this case just generally messing with the orthodox Christology found in the received Word of God. A central part of the devil's corruption of God's Word is the deity and facts of Christ's work of redemption. You present that one example to James White and he shows enough conscience to blush all the way to the very top of his skull, but then he as all Critical Text priests of academia and their followers launches into justifications. Justifications for holding to the authority of man over the authority of God. The conscious says one thing, but sin is irrational to the core.
One more question, pleae - I listen a lot to Way of the Master Radio. On the 6/15/07 podcast Todd Friel in fielding a question came down on the side of Mark 16:9-20 being inauthentic ("the best manuscripts don't have it").
Have you ever heard him? He's a simple, good hearted straightforward guy. He's so passionate about the grace of God, he is so adamant and uncompromising about human sin and the necessity of Christ ... I do not see him as secretly worshiping human institutions/scholars over God.
Do you think it's possible for people to be saved and saved via non KJV translations, and so are mistaken on textual points?
Spongjohn, the subject is competing manuscripts, the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts vs. the received Word of God that underlies the Authorized Version and no other version in English (an interesting point in and of itself).
And rhetoric like 'Teddy' Beza, similar to others of your ilk speaking of 'King Jimmy' just exposes your liberal, mocking stance towards the seriousness of the subject matter. The Word of God is the foundation of the faith.
And what Tod Friehl calls the 'best manuscripts' are the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. No matter how piously he may present himself when he tells an audience they can't trust the Word of God to be preserved by God he is doing the work of the devil. He is engaged in the very same campaign the Jesuits of the counter-Reformation engaged in regarding variants and their corrupt manuscripts and arguing for the authority of man over the authority of God.
Regarding Rev. 16:5 here is the basic info:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Rev16-5.html
+++++++
Revelation 16:5
"Thou art righteous, O LORD, which art, and wast, AND SHALT BE, because thou hast judged thus."
The texts that underlie Revelation 16:5 vary greatly among themselves. The word LORD is found in 051, 296, 2049, some Latin copies, the Coptic Boharic and Ethiopic ancient versions. LORD is also the reading of Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, KJB, NKJV, Young's, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Douay, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, and Green's Literal KJV.
The NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV all omit the word LORD.
The second part is the one that is more hotly debated - "AND SHALT BE" This is the reading found in the Greek texts of Beza, which the KJB translators mainly used, and is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, Green's Literal KJV, Webster's, Young's, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is also the reading of the Greek texts the Trinitarian Bible Society of 1894, and that of J.P. Green's interlinear Greek text. The KJB reading is also supported by a Latin commentary on the book of Revelation done way back in 380 A.D. by Beatus.
Dr. Thomas Holland regarding the KJB reading of Revelation 16:5 http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm
"First of all, to change the Trinitarian phraseology (which is used in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:3; and 11:17) does break the sense of the passage and is inconsistent with the phrase used elsewhere by John. Furthermore, the addition of "Holy One" is awkward and is repetitive of the use of the phrase "Thou art righteous, O Lord."
Secondly, there are some textual variances among the changes made. The Greek text of Beza reads, "o wn, kai o hn, kai o esomenos" (who is, and was, and shall be).
Thirdly, P47 is not the only Greek text which is worn here. In fact, while P47 is slightly worn, the Greek text which Beza used was greatly worn. This is so noted by Beza himself in his footnote on Revelation 16:5 as he gives reason for his conjectural emendation:
"And shall be": The usual publication is "holy one," which shows a division, contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in scripture... But with John there remains a completeness where the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly "and shall be," for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, "shall be." So why not truthfully, with good reason, write "which is to come" as before in four other places, namely 1:4 and 8; likewise in 4:3 and 11:17, because the point is the just Christ shall come away from there and bring them into being: in this way he will in fact appear setting in judgment and exercising his just and eternal decrees. (TheodoreBeza, Nouum Sive Nouum Foedus Iesu Christi, 1589. Translated into English from the Latin footnote.)
Wordsworth also points out that in Revelation 16:5, Beatus of Liebana (who compiled a commentary on the book of Revelation) uses the Latin phrase "qui fuisti et futures es." This gives some additional evidence for the Greek reading byBeza (although he apparently drew his conclusion for other reasons). Beatus compiled his commentary in 786 AD.
Furthermore, Beatus was not writing his own commentary. Instead he was making a compilation and thus preserving the work of Tyconius, who wrote his commentary on Revelation around 380 AD (Aland and Aland, 211 and 216. Altaner, 437. Wordsword, 533.). So, it would seem that as early as 786, and possibly even as early as 380, their was an Old Latin text which read asBeza's Greek text does." (end of article by Dr. Thomas Holland)
Instead of "and shalt be" (ho esomenos) most texts read "the Holy" (ho hosios). However there is variation even among these. P47, which is the oldest remaining Greek copy and dates to the third century has a nonsensical reading of "who was AND holy". Vaticanus does not contain the book of Revelation, so we cannot look to it for confirmation one way or the other. Sinaiticus says "who was THE Holy", while Alexandrinus reads: "who was Holy", omitting the word "the". Even among the so called Majority of texts, there are four slightly different readings found, some adding extra definite articles or the word "and", while others do not in varying combinations.
For the modern versionists who depend on one of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts", namely Sinaiticus, it may be an eye opener to see some of the really strange readings found in this text in the book of Revelation.
Revelation 4:8 "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." But Sinaiticus says: " Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty..."
Revelation 7:4 and 14:3 Both verses mention the number of 144,000. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.
Revelation 10:1 "And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and A RAINBOW was upon his head..." Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with HAIR on his head."
Revelation 21:4 "For THE FORMER THINGS are passed away". Sinaiticus reads: "For THE SHEEP are passed away."
Revelation 21:5 "Behold, I make all things NEW", while Sinaiticus says: "Behold, I make all things EMPTY."
What we have here in Revelation 16:5 is a very common cluster of divergent readings and the King James Bible went with one reading while other versions went with another.
It is a well documented fact that multiplied numbers of ancient Greek manuscripts were available to the translators of early English Bible versions that we no longer have today. Another "minority reading" found in the KJB is 1 John5 :7 "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one". Only a few Greek manuscripts exist today which contain this reading, yet it was not always so. John Gill remarks in his commentary on 1 John regarding this trinitarian verse in the texts used by Stephanus in 1550: " Out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it." This example serves to illustrate that some readings found in the KJB were supported by far more textual evidence than is available for us today.
The King James Bible translators did not slavishly follow Beza's Greek text, but after much prayer, study and comparison, did include Beza's reading of "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5. We do not know what other Greek texts the KJB translators possessed at that time that may have helped them in their decisions. They then passed this reading on to future generations in the greatest Bible ever written. Since God has clearly placed His mark of divine approval upon the KJB throughout the last 400 years, I trust that He providentially guided the translators to give us His true words.
Ok thank you for the info. I will check it out & try to post on youtube to see what they say.
Post a Comment
<< Home