Warning
Anybody self-identifying as a Christian, especially one in any kind of position of leadership, self-appointed or not, who tells you there is error in the Bible is a devil, pure and simple.
They will usually disdain any notion of the supernatural in the preservation of the books and words of the Bible; as well as show contempt, by their silence, on any involvement of the Holy Spirit in preservation of the Bible.
They'll demand that you tell them what extant manuscript represents the Bible without error. Tell them that all manuscripts have to be edited. The reformers did this. But there is a difference between editing a similar stream of manuscripts vs. constructing a manuscript from diverse sources.
That editing process, that refining process, done over centuries, not reliant on one set of men or school of philosophy that's in the air at any given time, is guided by the provident hand of the Holy Spirit Himself. He guides the process and the outcome to where you will have the Bible, pure and whole, that you can actually hold in your hand.
That process for the English Bible culminated in the AV 1611, the pure and whole Word of God, the foundation of the faith, hated by devils the world over.
11 Comments:
I suspect this might tick you off, my friend, but AV 1611 is a translation of the Antichrist. It's true. And King James was a Freemason.
https://spiritualauthority.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/on-church-leadership/
It doesn't tick me off. It's the first I've heard of that, though. I guess William Tyndale was an agent of Antichrist too? The Reformation itself must have been an Antichrist operation. That Geneva Bible as well... Obviously it too had to be of the Antichrist. Come on, David.
That tension you see with the use of 'church' can mean invisible church, which is the Church of which Christ is King. The problem is not in the word, it's in the worldly and shallow (and worse) assemblies and congregations called churches.
The problem is actually cap-stoned by the word 'church.'
'the word “church” is a biblical misnomer, pagan in origin however you trace it—the linguistic keystone locking into position a virtual prison of ecclesiastical concepts and conditions designed to contain and control the people of God.'
'Christ named His body the Ekklesia. The Antichrist named his body the Church.'
'The Bride, at least, should stop calling herself the Church, as the word “church” in all it’s speculative and popular etymologies points to a building or temple made with hands, not to a people, as the word “ekklesia” intends. Where it does point to a person—it is to the Goddess Circe, a sorceress with many cruel similarities to the Whore of Babylon.'
and the reason AV 1611 is a translation of the Antichrist is for the foisting of a false "spiritual authority" and hierarchical language onto the Bible to support the King's and Bishop's claim to Headship over the ekklesia. This mandated language was a twisting of God's word, antithetical to Christ's expressed design for His Body. Please see my recent SpAu post on Church Leadership.
I don't follow your reasoning on Tyndale. And yes... Presbyterians, for instance, didn't come all the way out of Rome (out of Babylon) in their Reformation. They to this day still hold to the spiritual authority of the antichrist.
also on April 15, 1601 before he was King James I of England, as King James VI of Scotland, the king "entered Freemasonry as a Fellowcraft of the Lodge of Scoon". That makes him a member of an occultic religious body, an antichristian cult.
On Tyndale, the AV is something like 90% Tyndale. Interesting to know if he used church in his version.
Will Kinney at Brandplucked has addressed this issue directly:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/thechurchandbishops.htm
Sine this is such a big thing in your thinking you really should read that entire article, but here are three paragraphs that get at what I was trying to say:
"People sometimes complain about the word “church” and tell us it can refer to the religious building or the people who are the believers in Christ. Well, that’s true. In common language the church can mean either the building or the people.
Scripturally speaking, the true church of the Lord’s redeemed people is a building, and Jesus Christ is a corner stone and a foundation. It is a spiritual building made up of God’s people. “Ye are God’s building...I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon...For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3:9-11. “Ye also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house...Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” 1 Peter 2:5-6.
The words “assembly” and “congregation” lose the meaning and connection to a spiritual house or temple made up of living stones. Neither is either word limited to a spiritual community of believers in Christ. In high school we used to go to “assembly” and I used to work on an “assembly line”. Likewise a congregation can be a group of people gathered together for any purpose at all. We have the congregation of the Senate in the Congress and most of us do not relate this to any kind of spiritual experience at all."
You tossed this Will Kinney piece at me back in 2014. This is how I responded:
"Your boy Will Kinney managed to successfully beat down and tear apart a straw man. That’s all. He likes to swing his bat a lot, but he’s not really playing ball. . . swinging at phantom pitches and all! His philippic showcased a profound lack of understanding of even the basic underlying considerations at hand. . . he was absolutely blind to them."
Tyndale used the word "congregation" to translate _ekklesia_. The only time he utilized the word "church" in his English translation of 1525 was in Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37—referring, respectively, to the porch temple of Zeus and to robbers of the temple of Artemis. So Tyndale used the most proper English word of his time to refer to these buildings where idols of gods and goddesses were kept and worshiped.
Tyndale's Bible of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, The Great Bible of 1537, and the Bishop's Bible of 1568 all used the word "congregation." However, the trend shifted with the Geneva Bible of 1560 where the translators employed the word "church."
On wondering about this I was reminded of how Geneva brought back Calvin after they had officially banished him from the city... they brought him back to rule over them, to set up a legalistic system of clergy rule. They wanted to go back to being under ecclesiastical law and the Roman system of spiritual authority. So it makes sense they would use the language of Rome when speaking of the Body of Christ.
Yes, it is true that we are living stones being built up into a spiritual house, temples of the living God. But note in 1 Peter 2:5 how_lithoi_ and _oikos_ are translated properly as "stones" and "house." To use for _ekklesia_ the word "church" is not a translation at all, it's a falsification of the name, meaning and intent Christ gave to his beloved Body. An adversarial misnomer, really.
Just wanted to point out to you some realities that wouldn't necessarily be discovered unless one possessed a working knowledge of the original languages (which I don't think Kinney, for instance, has). We've been taken in on my levels, my friend. Sincere blessings to you.
David
Do you recognize the doctrine of the visible and invisible church? It seems to me the doctrine held by the translators of the Geneva and A.V. mitigate against your claims of Romanist conspiracy.
And didn't you see how Wycliffe used the word church. Wyckiffe whom Rome dug up and burned? It's just a very old English word.
2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Assembly here in greek is synagogue. This is another clue of the Jewishness of the early Church.
James does use the word for Church (ekklesia)
Turn to James 5:14 - Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Here's the difference. They met, or assembled in the synagogue (by then - not likely on the sabbath).But the elders were of the ecclesia, (called out ones) the Church, the body of Christ.
The body of Christ is not yet the bride of Christ. That comes much later. See the bride, the Lamb's wife in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Jewish, but as the difference between Saul and Paul.
Post a Comment
<< Home