Home » Kent Brandenburg (Page 4)
Category Archives: Kent Brandenburg
Answering Mark Ward’s Last Attack on Preservation of Scripture
Mark Ward summarized almost all of his views on the issue of the preservation of scripture towards the end of his most recent video (here next is a transcript):
Stories?
King James Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories: a Masoretic Text/TR story or a Ruckmanite story. The MT/TR story goes like this. Once upon a time God inspired the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament and He promised in Psalm 12 and Matthew 5 to preserve them perfectly down to the jot and tittle. Satan came along and produced counterfeits of the Greek New Testament, but thankfully the King James Version translators perfectly translated the perfect Hebrew and Greek texts once and for all. And it’s easy to spot the terrible Satanic corruptions in other Bibles.
When difficulties and inconsistencies are pointed out, however, in this MT/TR story, as I’ve done in this video, it tends to turn into the Ruckmanite story, which goes like this. Once upon a time God gave special blessings to the King James Translators so that all of their textual choices and all of their translation choices were perfect. If there are a few places in the King James that have no textual support in the Greek or the Hebrew manuscripts, that’s okay because God inspired the King James Translators to choose the right reading. If there are a few places in the King James Version where the translators actually followed readings taken from Erasmus that were translated from the Vulgate, that’s okay because God inspired the King James translators to recover the right reading.
The Ward Viewpoint
Now I told the pastor who sent me some of these examples that I don’t enjoy having to point out these difficulties and complexities. But let me build another bridge of trust, the one that I myself use all the time in my Bible study travels. Who gave us the situation in which we have incredible well preserved copies of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, but there are numerous minor uncertainties and difficulties? Who gave us a world in which perfect translation between languages is impossible?
Who inspired the New Testament apostles to quote a Greek translation of the Old Testament rather than make new and doubtless perfect translations of the Hebrew? (And by the way I draw that last question directly from the King James Translators and their preface.) Who chose not to give us inspired translators, yeah, even a pope to give the best translation in each language his official imprimatur, the seal of divine approval?
Who gave us a Bible that comes in two very different languages, Hebrew and Greek, and actually Aramaic, three, and would therefore require translation in the first place? Who gave us a Bible over the course of 1500 years instead of all at once? Who chose to commit His precious Word to fragile papyrus and sheepskin?
Who gave us the excellent but not perfect situation we’re in? But who told us that one day the perfect would come that we would know even as also we are known? I think you know the answer to my not so rhetorical questions. God did all of these things, and He is good. He is my refuge even when I don’t understand His choices.
Overall Observations and Criticisms of Ward’s Statements
Ward’s little speech makes it easier to deal with what he thinks and says. First, I have some overall observations or criticisms. One, Ward caricatures and misrepresents especially the MT/TR position, and even gets wrong how Ruckmanism arose. He’s not telling the truth. Why do his followers give him a pass on this?
Two, Ward lumps the MT/TR people together with the Ruckmanites. I don’t know if he thinks this, or just conveniently tells it as a story. Either way, it is false. The MT/TR position arises from scripture like he says (albeit in a mocking way), but it also mirrors historic Christian doctrine as seen in creeds, confessions, and many other writings. His view did not exist among professing believers until the 19th century. This has been established, but Mark Ward and others like him just ignore it for a lie of a story. I will return to this point later.
Three, do consider that Mark Ward uses the word “story” to describe MT/TR people. Ward knows what words mean and he knows that the popular usage of “story” today is fiction. Notice then when he starts talking about his view, he calls it a “bridge of trust” and a “situation.” He doesn’t call that another story, a third story as the first two are stories.
Ward on Truth Serum
It seems to me that Ward has “lost it.” His primary target essentially rejects what he says, and he’s lost it, perhaps because of that. And then because he’s lost it, he did something I have not seen him do. I’m not saying he’s never done it, but I’ve never seen it myself. Mark Ward takes truth serum. He plainly states his viewpoint as I’ve never heard him. Ward acknowledges a lack of perfection of the Bible, based not on scriptural doctrine but on his experience. His stark confession reminds me of two examples.
In the last year, I saw a clip of Bill Maher in which he says that all pro-choice people know abortion is murder. He said he knows abortion is murder and he is fine with that. Maher’s two guest sat with jaws dropping at the sheer admission. In one sense, I can respect Maher because at least he tells the truth about his position on abortion. Another popular figure, Bernie Sanders, just comes out and in an obvious way supports socialism. He states his leftist positions without hiding them. Mark Ward does the same in this latest video like no other time.
I think it is important that someone hear what Ward says and understands what’s wrong with it. This is a teaching moment for a true bibliology. Ward admits what a big chunk of his side thinks. It is akin to neo-orthodoxy, not a biblical position. When Bart Ehrman came to this realization, it turned him apostate, which is a danger. I’m going to go through the above paragraphs by Ward and give a scriptural, truthful analysis to it. He’s wrong in so many ways.
First, what’s wrong with Ward’s MT/TR story?
“Neat and Tidy”
Mark Ward mocks the idea of a “neat and tidy” position. Don’t miss that. He would have his audience believe that the truth is not so neat and tidy. To him this is worth mocking with his articulation. The neatness and tidiness of the MT/TR position is that, one, God said He would preserve every Word He inspired and, two, He did it. That is neat and tidy. Modern version onlyists, critical text supporters are in a never-ending quest to improve the text of scripture. God didn’t preserve it perfectly — it’s really disorderly and messy. If you won’t embrace that, Ward will mock you for it.
“Tells Themselves”
Ward says that MT/TR people tell themselves a story. It’s as if they are repeating this story as a mantra, abracadabra and suddenly it will be true, because they keep telling it to themselves. It’s like spinning a talisman in one’s pocket or a lucky rabbit’s foot. “Just keep telling yourself.” He’s the nice guy regularly using this type of derogatory style. Yet, he won’t allow his opposition to comment on his constant youtube presentations on the subject. It gives the impression that everyone agrees. Just because someone tells himself something doesn’t make it true. When God says it, it is true.
“Once Upon a Time”
“Once upon a time” again is a reference to make believe or fantasy. It’s like opening up Cinderella as an actual book of history. He equates the truth with something that is a fable. Ward treats historical and scriptural doctrine like it is a fable.
It is difficult to separate some of what Mark Ward says from other of what he says. He bunches inspiration of scripture into his storybook mode. Is that a story too? I don’t think he means to do that, but it is the net result of this style of criticism he employs. Inspiration is supernatural. Our reason for believing inspiration is the inspired Bible itself. I believe Ward accepts this, but the attacks on inspiration from the neo-orthodox are the same as those on preservation. They question the veracity of inspiration based on so-called external evidence and reject the biblical teaching on inspiration.
Scriptural Presuppositions
Ward is correct that MT/TR folk presuppose perfect preservation based upon preservation passages in scripture. This wasn’t odd through Christian history and yet it is now, because of the attack on the doctrine mainly in the last thirty or so years. Ward is part of this attack. I’m using him here as a representative. He cherry picks two chapters for the simplicity of his storybook, Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are numbers of passages that teach preservation, as many or more than teach inspiration. This is presuppositionalism. We presuppose God fulfilled what He said. What’s wrong with that?
Is the teaching of preservation a story as in a storybook? True Christians have long believed it. The doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture comes from the Bible. I and others didn’t invent this. Many people in the pews of churches believe this too. They see it in the Bible and it is not buttressed only by Psalm 12 and Matthew 5. There are many others (some of which we exposed in our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them).
Ward himself recently started taking on scripture to support his doctrine of “edification requires intelligibility,” teaching it on a level unprecedented in the history of biblical doctrine. People like myself and others support his notion, even if we question his reliance on 1 Corinthians 14, a passage on using the known language of the congregation rather than gibberish. In other words, it’s a stretch to make so much of that principle due to even fifty to one hundred of his “false friends.”
Satan Counterfeiting
Next Ward says that MT/TR people assert that Satan took on the strategy of counterfeiting the MT/TR. Nope. Not true. Satan attacks scripture, yes. You see that in classic passages like Genesis 3 and Matthew 4. It’s also something seen in 2 Peter 3, where false teachers wrest the scripture. Also, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2, that false teachers spread a false epistle with teaching contradictory to his, feigning as though it was from him.
MT/TR people like myself would agree that the attack by Satan starts by attacking the doctrine of preservation. Satan also wants people to be unsure, have doubt, about the perfection of scripture. This takes away from authority. Rather than a settled text, it is a disorderly and messy one that is uncertain. Mark Ward calls this confidence. It is a relative term, meaning something like 95% to 98%, what I like to say is less pure than tide detergent.
More to Come
Utilitarianism As The Only Moral Law That Matters
What Standard?
As you look around the world in which we live, you may wonder the basis for moral choices. Why rampant abortion? Why pervasive foul language of the worst sort? How are all music types now acceptable? What is the basis for same sex marriage? How could ninety percent of teenagers justify their premarital sex?
Churches function in an all-new manner too based upon different guidelines. What changed? Dress standards have gone by the wayside. Everything is more casual, immodest, and worldly. Church activities and even worship orient more around worldly allure and entertainment. Service times decrease. Members are far less faithful than ever.
Sam Bankman-Fried Case Study
This week in the Washington Post Michael Lewis, who has a future book coming on the same subject, wrote an article entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried, a personal verdict: A few thoughts on how Americans thought about the crypto trial of the century.” He introduced one portion of the trial testimony transcript with this paragraph:
Caroline explained to the jury how the crypto lenders had asked her for a quick and dirty picture of Alameda Research’s finances. And how, on June 18, on Sam’s instructions, she cooked up eight different balance sheets of varying degrees of dishonesty and presented them to Sam, who selected the least honest of the bunch to show his lenders.
Caroline referred to Caroline Ellison, the CEO of Alameda Research, the trading firm affiliated with Sam Bankman-Fried’s cryptocurrency exchange FTX. She pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy charges for her role in the crimes committed. She said in her testimony:
Q. In the course of working with the defendant, did he talk to you about the ethics of lying and stealing? A. Yeah. He said that he was a utilitarian, and he believed that the ways that people tried to justify rules like don’t lie and don’t steal within utilitarianism didn’t work, and he thought that the only moral rule that mattered was doing whatever would maximize utility — so essentially trying to create the greatest good for the greatest number of people or beings.
Utilitarianism
‘Creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people’ in not the ethic of utilitarianism, so he’s misrepresented it. His view of the world though, I believe, is very common. It might be mainstream. People are going to live for their best life now. And what they mean by that is the historical understanding of utility, which relates more to maximizing happiness and pleasure while minimizing pain and unhappiness.
Utility is not in and of itself goodness. The good thing is not inherently good, but good based on what brings the most immediate pleasure. It corresponds to a rejection of God and moral absolutes. What gives the maximum number of people pleasure and happiness is in accordance with conventional wisdom.
What pleasure did a maximum number derive from Bankman-Fried? He used his swindled money to donate to Democrat causes across the United States. His money helped put Democrats in office. Bankman-Fried himself was the beneficiary short-term of utility and emblematic of what anyone could receive without biblical morality.
A Comparison
Among many similar reasons, people miss church because of a sports league that brings pleasure and happiness. They work on Sundays because the money pays for pleasure and happiness. Children lie to their parents because the truth would freak them out. That would prohibit pleasure and happiness all around. The act of evangelism brings animosity and ridicule. How could those two things bring someone pleasure and happiness?
Five hundred years into Christ’s kingdom or one million years into the eternal state, the recipient will live in utter and indescribable bliss. I would call that pleasure and happiness too. For the short seventy to one hundred year life in this age, sacrifice brings joy, deep-seated fulfillment, or an inner calm of the soul. Paul said the short term suffering is not compared to the eternal weight of glory. This is living by faith. Faith overcomes the delusion of utilitarianism.
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
Natural Laws Don’t Cause Origins or Existence
Natural Laws
When you look at the world and space around it, you are not seeing the result of natural laws. The natural laws, such as the law of gravity, do not explain the origin of the universe. When one football player flies out of bounds after a collision with another, a natural law did not cause that. The second player caused the first one to move out of bounds. You could say that a defender forced him out. Natural laws didn’t bring about the event.
Force, as one player forcing another out of bounds, expresses Newton’s second law of motion, which says:
The acceleration of an object depends on the mass of the object and the amount of force applied.
Something applies force and it isn’t a law itself that does it. Newton’s law, a natural law, explains the force, but it isn’t what sent the offensive out of bounds. Someone pushed him. The law explaining the momentum that carried a football out of bounds didn’t make him quickly and explosively leave the playing field.
Category Error
Before nature existed, the laws of nature did not exist. Laws explain how nature operates, not what caused it to get here. In his 2010 book The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking wrote that the universe can and will create itself from nothing because of the existence of laws like gravity. He said:
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.
In an accurate way, people call this mistake, a “category error.” It is my normal practice to attempt to give someone the benefit of the doubt. According to 1 Corinthians 13:7, this is ‘hoping all things.’ However, it is very hard to believe that these men really do think that the universe arose from laws that depend on an already existent universe. Space and matter precede natural laws. No one should believe or advocate for this deluded concept declared by Stephen Hawking. It is so bad, this idea that laws actually do things, that it really should be a laughing-stock.
God the Cause for Everything
Every year, people fall from high elevation and die from hitting the ground below. The news does not report that the law of gravity caused their death. Again, there is a law of gravity, but the law itself doesn’t cause anything.
God both caused and sustains space, matter, and energy. The laws that explain their function themselves proceed from His intelligence and design. Assigning their cause to laws is just a futile attempt to eliminate God and man’s accountability and obligation to Him.
AI Friday: Who Won the Thomas Ross/James White KJV Debate?
Again, I asked AI the question of the title of today’s post, and here was it’s answer.
The debate between Thomas Ross and James White regarding the superiority of the King James Version (KJV) versus the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) was marked by a clear division in perspectives on textual criticism and translation philosophy.
Debate Overview
Participants and Positions:
James White affirmed that the LSB, based on modern textual criticism and the Nestle-Aland Greek text, is superior to the KJV, which relies on the Textus Receptus.
Thomas Ross denied this claim, arguing for the KJV’s superiority based on its textual basis and historical usage within Protestant traditions.
Key Arguments:
James White argued that modern translations like the LSB are more accurate due to advances in textual criticism and manuscript discoveries.
Thomas Ross countered by emphasizing the preservation of Scripture as understood by KJV advocates, asserting that the KJV translators intended their work to be seen as superior to all previous translations.
Critical Points Raised:
Ross highlighted that White failed to provide substantial evidence from primary sources regarding what KJV translators would support today.
He also pointed out that many of White’s claims about modern translations undermining key doctrines were not substantiated with adequate historical context or documentation.
Conclusion Drawn from Reviews:
Post-debate analyses from various observers suggest that while both sides presented compelling arguments, Ross’s emphasis on historical fidelity and doctrinal integrity resonated strongly with those who hold traditional views of Scripture preservation.
Overall Assessment:
The debate did not yield a definitive “winner” in a traditional sense; however, many proponents of KJV-only perspectives believe that Thomas Ross effectively defended his position against James White’s assertions.
In summary, while both debaters presented their cases passionately, many observers lean towards viewing Thomas Ross as having won the debate, particularly among those who advocate for KJV-only positions.
***********************
I asked AI why Thomas Ross won the debate with James White and it concluded:
In summary, Thomas Ross won the debate against James White due to his strong argumentation on textual preservation, effective use of Scripture, engaging presentation style, ability to address counterarguments effectively, appeal to historical context, and connection with the audience’s values regarding traditional biblical texts.
Gaslighting
What Gaslighting Is
Today a word we are hearing very often, one that I never heard as I grew up, is “gaslighting.” As I looked to see if I had ever used the word in any of the written material of this blog site, I found none. People use the term all the time and in a popular manner, but it has a psychological meaning. Psychology Today defined it:
Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity.
I see and hear gaslighting all the time from the political left. It includes a blatant form of lying, that requires people to believe something demonstrably untrue.
Merriam-Webster named “gaslighting” its word of the year for 2023 because it said it was a pervasive term that shaped interactions and was relevant to our current social climate. The dictionary defines gaslighting as “the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one’s own advantage.” In the previous year of 2022, lookups for the word “gaslighting” occurred 1740% more than the previous year according to Merriam-Webster online.
If I were to sum up the concept of gaslighting in the clearest way possible, it is that gaslighting requires obedience to a lie. It’s not just lying, but requiring obedience to that lie. It says something different happened than what many, witnesses, even every witness, plainly see. Nevertheless, you must stand and nod your head “yes” to the gaslighter or face some form of retribution.
Examples and History of Gaslighting
The entire left gaslit the country on the condition of President Biden. Now it again gaslights the whole United States by giving a particular false impression about Vice President Harris. The left did this in 2016 with the Russian collusion hoax, saying that then President Trump was a Russian agent. For decades the so-called scientific community gaslit everyone with the theory of evolution, that then turned into the science of evolution, even though it isn’t scientific. Egalitarianism, that men and women are equal in authority and that they can fulfill each other’s roles, is also gaslighting.
Apparently the word “gaslight” arose from a 1938 British play, called “Gaslight.” Someone wrote the plot:
Set among London’s elite during the Victorian era, it portrays a seemingly genteel husband using lies and manipulation to isolate his heiress wife and persuade her that she is mentally unwell so that he can steal from her.
In scripture, the Pharisees gaslit the entire nation Israel with their teaching, leaving the people of Israel wallowing in spiritual darkness. The level of deceit in the world today, I would assess, is at an all time high with maybe the exception of the days of Noah. Everywhere you look, those in positions of authority spread bold-faced lies about the most important subjects.
A Challenge
It’s easy today for professing Christians to concern themselves deeply with government and elections, but the biggest ongoing gaslighting occurs concerning the Bible. False religion and false teachers gaslight billions with falsehoods and lies.
Even though Satan wants to destroy the Bible, a part of that larger strategy is destroying the truth itself. The gaslighting everywhere results in deceit on a mass scale. Men become apathetic toward the truth in this world scale flurry of lies. People give up, cutting through the lies seeming not to be worth the effort. They see the sheer difficulty of penetrating the fog of deceit as a legitimate excuse to hedge against future judgment. No one could be accountable to believe with so many lies everywhere. And yet that too is a lie, even a bigger one.
Gaslighting right now happens at epic proportions. It’s as if the gaslighters are attempting to top one another with the sheer audacity. It is a high level of disrespect to the targets or audience of the gaslighting, that they think that it will work at this scale. They have good reason to think they’ll fool people, because it’s working.
Spiritual Combat, Highlighting Satan’s Pincer Movement
A Military Maneuver
Military leaders have studied the Bible to understand war or battle strategy. Very many times, God makes military allusions in scripture. Almost since the beginning of time, a war exists. The Apostle Paul calls for soldiers and he himself fights a good fight. What strategy does Satan use?
In his art of war, Satan often uses what armed forces call a “pincer movement.” It is like it sounds if you understand getting pinched. My dad would pinch me in church when I fell asleep, so I understand the threat and possible pain of a pinching. The pincer movement is a military maneuver where an opposing army attacks simultaneously on what experts call, “both flanks.”
In 1943, General George Patton led the U.S. 7th Army in a pincer movement against Messina, Sicily, as part of the Allies’ attempt to trap Axis forces before they could retreat to the Italian mainland. The pincer movement involved the British 8th Army moving up the southeast coast of the island, while the U.S. 7th Army moved east across the north coast. During the American Revolutionary War, the British used a pincer movement, also known as a “double envelopment,” in several battles to isolate New England from the rest of the colonies and gain control of the Hudson River Valley.
Satan’s Pincer Movements
How does Satan use a pincer movement to attack a believer on both flanks? On one flank, he attacks with a force of persecution or punishment. Satan threatens the believer to succumb to his pressure of persecution.
As the believer looks at the flank of persecution and moves away from it, Satan lures the same believer with the allurements of the flesh. He feels justified gratifying his flesh because of the poor treatment he experiences. You can see these two working in tandem in different places in scripture.
Anyone in the world of Noah saw what he endured as a preacher of righteousness. At the same time “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair” (Genesis 6:2). Those are the very two pincers of lust and persecution.
Satan brought the pressure against Israel from Pharoah with his harsh treatment of those people before the Exodus. He made their work harder by not providing straw for brick making. Israel also craved for the leeks, garlic, and onions that they had in Egypt.
Overall, the merchants of Babylon in Revelation 18:15 prospered through Babylon’s luxury under the leadership of the Satanic Antichrist. On the other hand, he makes war against and starves those who are against him in Revelation 13.
The Defeat of the Satanic Strategy
God uses many different examples in the Bible of Satan using the pincer movement in his war against God. Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 12:11 of not being ignorant of Satan’s devices. Satan employs a strategic approach often likened to a military pincer movement in his ongoing conflict against God and humanity. This tactic involves attacking from two flanks simultaneously, creating pressure that can overwhelm and confuse the target.
The flank of persecution and the other of lust are not the only pincers he uses. Sometimes he couples lust with the intellectual onslaught of false teachers. Other times one side are those false teachers and on the other are the personal conflicts with believers either inside or outside the church. Very often Satan fights his war on two fronts just like the United States faced both the Japanese and the Germans on two different ones in World War 2.
Like all war and battle against Satan, believers must recognize what Satan does. They should engage in prayer and put on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18). Believers can also find support and relief from their brothers in the church (Hebrews 10:24-25). They should focus on the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and their future of eternal rewards that awaits them.
AI Friday: “Did God Perfectly Preserve Every Word of the Bible?”
I asked Artificial Intelligence this question: “Did God perfectly preserve every word of the Bible?” It answered with the following.
Understanding the Doctrine of Preservation
The doctrine of preservation is a crucial aspect of Christian theology, which asserts that God has perfectly preserved every word of the Bible. This doctrine is rooted in the Bible itself, which provides numerous assurances of God’s sovereignty over His Word.
The Importance of Preservation
The preservation of Scripture is essential for the Christian faith, as it ensures that the Bible remains a reliable and authoritative source of truth. If God’s Word has not been perfectly preserved, then its authority and reliability are compromised. The Bible’s authority is only as great as our confidence in its reliability.
God’s Promises of Preservation
The Bible contains numerous promises of God’s preservation of His Word. For example, in Psalm 12:6-7, God declares, “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” Similarly, in Matthew 24:35, Jesus affirms, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
The Extent of Preservation
The Bible teaches that God has preserved not only the general ideas or thoughts of Scripture but also every individual word. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus emphasizes the importance of every jot and tittle of God’s Word, stating, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Conclusion
God has perfectly preserved every word of the Bible. This doctrine is rooted in the Bible’s own promises and assurances of God’s sovereignty over His Word. The preservation of Scripture is essential for the Christian faith, ensuring that the Bible remains a reliable and authoritative source of truth.
Zero Social Gospel in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Part Three)
The application of coupling the important New Testament word “gospel” with “social” makes it an issue of eternal destiny. Gospel relates to salvation, so somehow “social gospel” relates to the word “salvation” at least. Does a social gospel really save though? It doesn’t.
The gospel saves, but not something called “social gospel.” Social gospel advocates make the social gospel a determiner of eternal destiny by buttressing it with the parable of the sheep and the goats from Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. At the end of this parable, Jesus says to His disciples (Matthew 12:45-46):
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Whatever position someone might take about this passage, it sounds very serious. Someone is going to everlasting punishment and another is going to life eternal. Everyone will want to get into the latter category, of course.
The Gospel
Social gospel proponents hint that God requires taking care of the poor to avoid going away into everlasting punishment. Almost all of them would not go that far, because the same ones who interpret this passage as social work also are tentative or weak on eternal punishment for anyone. However, they still want to frontload these works into the definition of the gospel.
In Jesus’ presentation of the gospel, He deals with two aspects: one, the entrance requirements, and two, the confirmation of conversion. Someone can say he acceded to the entrance requirements, but Jesus says to judge that by a confirming transformation. The sheep, who are separated from the goats in Christ’s judgment of nations at the end of the tribulation period, confirm their identity as true sheep and not goats by authenticating behavior.
The Audience of Jesus’s Teaching
Jesus speaks to saved Jews and tells them that at this time of trial and trouble before the beginning of His reign on earth, they will not abandon their fellow believers. That would be the same or akin to abandoning him. At that time of testing, you can identify the true sheep by their embrace of other suffering sheep. Jesus is not saying the following in this prophetic address:
People in general receive life eternal and avoid everlasting punishment by feeding and housing poor people in general, saved and unsaved — in essence, God saves people for their good works in contradiction to the gospel.
The Lord in His Olivet Discourse does not address society in general. He answers His Jewish disciples about the future coming of His kingdom, something they expected as premillennialists. Jesus isn’t spiritualizing or allegorizing. He uses figurative language of sheep and goats, which are metaphors, easily identifiable. Goats are not leadable. They don’t follow. Jesus can and will lead sheep and His sheep will follow Him.
Answering the Disciples about a Literal Kingdom
All of the parables Jesus tells in His Olivet Discourse answer the questions of the disciples at the beginning of it:
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The word “coming” occurs seven times in Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 24-25 and especially “the coming of the Son of Man” in 24:27, 30, 37, and 39. God reveals to Daniel and Daniel 7:13-14:
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold,, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
The disciples and Jesus refer to this prophecy and this time. This isn’t speaking of any old time. It’s answering a question specifying a particular future actual event.
The Application of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats
How much of the parable of the sheep and the goats and the Olivet Discourse in general apply to now? The Olivet Discourse mainly does not apply to anything happening right now. It’s about something yet to come. That doesn’t mean there is zero application. It does apply in certain general ways.
One, it provides hope for the future. Jesus is coming and He will set up a kingdom on the earth. Two, Jews will believe in Jesus Christ in fulfillment of those prophecies in Isaiah 52-53 and Zechariah 12, so we can trust God’s promises. They will take care of fellow believers and then enter into the kingdom. Above all things, three, the message to believers today is to be ready for these events. Believers ought to always ready themselves for the future. They should and will take care of their own as if they are Jesus Christ Himself.
The philosophy or message of the social gospel clashes with scripture, some of which I addressed earlier regarding salvation by grace through faith. Social work won’t save you. It doesn’t even confirm your conversion according to this proof text. True believers will band together to survive persecution, which validates their true salvation profession. This is equal to not defecting from the faith and instead overcoming by faith.
God’s Purpose
Feeding and Housing?
The Bible smacks up against feeding and housing the general poor or homeless population. As I say that, scripture categorizes people in a different way than the modern social movements. Like He does in the Olivet Discourse, consistent with all the Bible, there the saved and the lost. David writes in Psalm 37:25:
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Preaching the gospel to everyone can move some into the category of the righteous. That will also solve people’s physical condition. It is not God’s will to relieve everyone indiscriminately from their hunger. God uses drought and famine to get people’s attention. He also uses poor physical conditions to prepare hearts and open eyes to the need of and for God.
Using Drought, Disease, and Famine
Feeding and housing takes away the pain of sin-engendered suffering that might help these people listen to the actual gospel message. As an example Amos 4:6-9 says God sends droughts, disease, and famine to warn and cause to listen to Him:
6 And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
7 And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
8 So two or three cities wandered unto one city, to drink water; but they were not satisfied: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
9 I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
Many of drought, disease, and famine bring about the will of God. God doesn’t want people to rescue the ones suffering without repentance. This postpones something even worse for them. God uses these physical troubles to motivate a return to Him. These passages occur all over scripture.
Social Gospel Clashes with Jesus and the True and Only Gospel
The social gospel elevates the temporal, like Esau relinquishing his birthright for a mess of pottage (Gen 25:31-34). This confuses people. It sends a wrong, false message that this is your best life now. No. Faith trades the temporal for the eternal. This is the simplicity of losing your temporal life for eternal life. The social elevates the former as the priority. Jesus doesn’t do this. He says give up the world and take Him, which is to obtain eternal life.
The social gospel doesn’t take scripture seriously. It primarily uses the Bible. The goal is not understanding what Jesus said in Matthew 25, but using what he said for an agenda, one that isn’t true.
Should social gospel supporters scare people by telling them that they won’t have eternal life if they don’t volunteer to feed and house the general population? Do they even believe this? It’s either true or it isn’t. It isn’t true, and since it isn’t true, this kind of threat is wicked.
Jesus will turn people into the lake of fire. Who He does and who He doesn’t are as important as anything. It’s a terrible thing to confuse the gospel. People are saved, not by doing good works, but by faith alone in Jesus Christ.
How Can There Be Any Sin in Sincere? Mark Ward Strikes Again
Mark Ward made a video about me, and then SharperIron linked to it with my name. Is this a case of my living rent free in Mark’s head? I don’t know. I’m fine with his letting it go. He can’t do it though. Maybe I’m bringing him more audience. His numbers go up when he uses me in his presentations. They go way up. The terminology is “clickbait.”
In this edition of the Mark Ward show, he says that I helped prove his point about his “false friends” in the King James Version. He titles the episode: “Let a Leading KJV-Onlyist Teach You a False Friend!” Oh so clever, Mark Ward, the Snidley Whiplash of Multiple Version Onlyists. Yet, “Curses, foiled again!” Foiled again, because Dudley Do-Right of TR Onlyism is of course not in fact jumping on the Snidley false friend train track. What happened?
1 Peter 2:2
For many years, I have used and still use 1 Peter 2:2 as a major Christian worldview reference and helping understand the word “sincere.” Mark says “sincere” now is a bad translation in 1 Peter 2:2 and a “false friend.” I ask, “How can there be any sin in sincere?” Answer: By stretching the truth.
Mark dug deep into this blog to find a post and an exchange in the comment section as the highlight of his program. Here is 1 Peter 2:2:
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.
I’ve referred to “the sincere milk” many times as the “pure mother’s milk” (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). Ward says “sincere” is a false friend to a reader of the King James Version, because sincere means something different today than it did in 1611 (or 1769). Instead, he says (and says that I say) it means “pure.” He reports that I think it should mean pure too, but because I’m KJVO, I won’t admit that, even though I believe it. He’s saying I’m not sincere about sincere.
Sincere Milk
Welcome to the Snidley Whiplash mindreading class, SW101. I said that “sincere milk” is not common language for today. It isn’t. Almost nobody would know what that means without explanation. Perhaps people knew better in 1611. Still, I don’t think another translation today would be better than “sincere” in 1 Peter 2:2. “Pure milk” doesn’t get it done. It misses the point of that expression in the original language. I talk about the meaning in the comment section of the post to which Ward referred:
The mother’s milk goes to her baby without any other intervention, no human intervention, straight from mom to baby, unlike other milk. God changes us through revelation, not through our discoveries. With God and His Word there is no variableness or shadow of turning. His Word and God are not relative as is everything else. It comes direct and so undiluted or affected unlike our eyewitness or findings. We can’t trust these lying eyes or that there hasn’t been some kind of intervention in nature. This is why faith is superior to human discovery, because it depends on God.
The sincerity, the purity, is that it comes as one, which is the meaning of the Latin “sin,” one. There is oneness to the nature of God and to His revelation. It is entirely cohesive, non-contradictory, not mixed with any kind of error.
Mark Ward doesn’t include this part in his presentation. Why do I think “sincere” is still a good translation that needs no update in 1 Peter 2:2?
Pure or Sincere?
Play On Words
The Greek word translated “sincere” is adolos. The “a” portion of the Greek word means “no.” It’s called an alpha privative, expressing negation or absence. The previous verse, 1 Peter 2:1, uses dolos, the King James translators translated it guile. Guile could also mean deception. I believe there is a purposeful play on words by Peter between dolos and adolos, emphasizing the contrast between the speakings of men and the speakings of God. The speakings of men have dolos and the speakings of God have adolos.
Does adolos strictly mean “pure”? No. Sincerity conveys that someone speaks without deception, the error that enters into the speech or writing for a man-engendered reason. “Pure” doesn’t communicate that. In this sense, when the modern translators translate adolos as “pure,” that’s a false friend to those who read the word.
Meaning of Pure
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says in Matthew 5:8:
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Is “pure” here adolos? Is it without guile or not deceptive? No. This is the Greek word katharoi. An English word that comes from this is “katharsis.” This is what people think when they hear “pure” today. Yet, that’s not what Peter is saying in 1 Peter 2:2, that the Word of God is pure in that sense.
What I thought and wrote in the one post to which Mark Ward refers is that “sincere milk” is the “pure mother’s milk.” That is different than saying it is “pure milk.” He says that I wrote that “sincere” means “pure.” I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, which is why I believe Mark Ward left off the latter context of what I wrote and really focused on my reference to the Oxford English Dictionary. He isn’t sincere about my position ironically. That adulterates his commentary on what I wrote.
Christian Worldview
From a Christian worldview standpoint, God’s Word is revelation so it goes from God directly to the hearer like a breast-fed baby gets his milk directly from his mother. There is no intermediary. Evidence on the other hand involves, one, someone’s lying or deceived eyes, and, two, a context that is not neutral. I like to the say that the crime scene is contaminated.
When human beings look at evidence, they don’t see it clearly. God’s Word or will, therefore, can’t come through human discovery, but through the direct undiluted revelation of God. Revelation by nature is non-discoverable or else it wouldn’t be revelation. Revelation is “sincere milk.”
“Sincere” is still the best translation, but we also still have to explain it. If we translated adolos “pure,” that would more likely, I believe, lead someone astray on the meaning of the word, a false friend to the one reading it. I really do think this and Snidley Whiplash, someone who rejects the perfect preservation of scripture, misrepresents me on this. He’s a false friend to me.
Me a King James Onlyist?
I want to say one more thing about what Mark Ward does. He also deceives his audience by calling me a leading King James Onlyist. Calling someone King James Only, he knows is a pejorative. Mark Ward knows that double inspirationists (Ruckmanites) and English preservationists don’t see me as a leading King James Onlyist. Why? Based on the most fair understanding of that label, I’m not. Why not?
One,
I believe that translations should come from the original language texts, the Hebrew and Greek, not from the English. That means that I vouch for translations that are not the King James Version. Hence, I’m not King James Only. True King James Onlyists won’t do that and don’t believe that.
Two,
I do not reject an update of the King James Version. The only ones who do not know that are those who read misrepresentations from people like Mark Ward. I believe preservation is found in the original language text from which an update would come and did come in 1769 already. We do not use the 1611 today. An update already occurred. How could I be against that?
Three,
I don’t think an update of the King James Version is wrong, so I also think some words in the King James Version are archaic or out-of-use. I’ve said this again and again. It doesn’t mean I support an update. I have other reasons why I want to keep the King James Version. The main one is its underlying textual differences between the King James and modern versions, something Mark Ward says he won’t debate.
Four,
I say all the time that I think someone could make a different translation of certain words in the King James Version. Someone could translate the Hebrew and Greek words in a different way and they’d be right. The translation of the King James isn’t the only way or ways to translate the original language text. I know I would make different choices than the King James translators, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re wrong either.
A False Friend
When I study the Bible, I study the original languages. False friends don’t occur to me, because I’m studying the words in their original languages. I also know because of studying the original languages that translated words very often are false friends. Mark Ward exaggerates the importance of these words. He treats himself like he’s come upon something highly significant. He hasn’t. I don’t think his point about false friends means nothing, but there are greater concerns by far than these.
Mark Ward is a false friend about the King James Version. He poses like he really wants to help those who use it. I don’t see it. By far, he’s a greater danger because of the doubt he casts upon the BIble that people use. He relishes those who start using a contemporary translation that varies from the underlying text of the King James Version vastly more than the total number of false friends he reports.
Recent Comments