Home » Posts tagged 'New Testament'
Tag Archives: New Testament
Christ’s Genealogies: Eusebius / Africanus on Matthew & Luke
The genealogies in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke both record the family history of the Lord Jesus Christ. Matthew traces the Lord’s genealogy back to Abraham, while Luke traces the geneology back to Adam. Critics have argued that there are insoluble contradictions between the two genealogies. This blog has looked at other alleged contradictions in the Bible in other posts. (Also see here, where a video discussing a different attack on these genealogies is referenced; see also the videos here.) Are they correct?
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke
Matthew wrote:
1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17)
Luke wrote:
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:23-38)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: Joseph’s and Mary’s Line?
There are a variety of options Christian scholars have offered to reconcile these two accounts. Gleason Archer, for example, proposes that Luke records the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew records the genealogy of Joseph. Thus, the Lord Jesus would be part of the line of David through both of His human parents–both His adopted human father, Joseph, and His human mother, Mary, were descendants of king David:
Matthew 1:1–16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned. Notice carefully the wording of v.16: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (NASB). This stands in contrast to the format followed in the preceding verses of the succession of Joseph’s ancestors: “Abraham begat [egennēsen] Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, etc.” Joseph is not said to have begotten Jesus; rather he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born.”
Luke 3:23–38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race. This seems to be implied by the wording of v.23: “Jesus … being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This “as was supposed” indicates that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though this was commonly assumed by the public. It further calls attention to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16). Mary’s line of descent came through Nathan, a son of Bathsheba (or “Bathshua,” according to 1 Chron. 3:5), the wife of David. Therefore, Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon. (Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982], 316).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: The Legal Line and The Blood Line?
Other scholars have offered other solutions. For example, Smith’s Bible Dictionary argues:
The New Testament gives us the genealogy of but one person, that of our Saviour. This is given because it was important to prove that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies spoken of him. Only as the son and heir of David should he be the Messiah. The following propositions will explain the true construction of these genealogies:—
1. They are both the genealogies of Joseph, i.e. of Jesus Christ as the reputed and legal son of Joseph and Mary.
2. The genealogy of St. Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy as legal successor to the throne of David. St. Luke’s is Joseph’s private Genealogy, exhibiting his real birth as David’s son, and thus showing why he was heir to Solomon’s crown. The simple principle that one evangelist exhibits that genealogy which contained the successive heir to David’s and Solomon’s throne, while the other exhibits the paternal stem of him who was the heir, explains all the anomalies of the two pedigrees, their agreements as well as their discrepancies, and the circumstance of there being two at all.
3. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was in all probability the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph her husband. Thus: Matthan or Matthat Father of Jacob, Heli Jacob Father of Mary = Jacob’e heir was (Joseph) Heli Father of Joseph JESUS, called Christ. (Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, rendering (Luke 3:23) thus: Jesus “being (as was suppposed) the son of Joseph, (but in reality) the son of Heli.” In this case Mary, as declared in the Targums, was the daughter of Heli, and Heli was the grandfather of Jesus. Mary’s name was omitted because “ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.” So we often find in the Old Testament the grandson called the son. This view has this greatly in its favor, that it shows that Jesus was not merely the legal but the actual descendant of David; and it would be very strange that in the gospel accounts, where so much is made of Jesus being the son and heir of David and of his kingdom his real descent from David should not be given. (“Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” in William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1884).
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke: An Ancient Explanation by Africanus Recorded in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History
The early church historian Eusebius records a fascinating option for reconciling the genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Eusebius reproduces information from the Christian writer Africanus, who was born in the second half of the 2nd century A. D. What is this explanation of the two genealogies that derives from the A. D. 100s?
Africanus … [was born] AD 170, or a little earlier, and died AD 240, or a little later. … [He] ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers. … His great work, which was intended to give a comparative view of sacred and profane history from the creation of the world, demanded an extensive range of reading; and the fragments that remain contain references to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. … his letter to Aristides, of whom nothing else is known, [comments] on the discrepancy between our Saviour’s genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. … Africanus insists on the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and … proceeds to give his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus), having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan’s son, took his wife and raised up seed to him; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli’s son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob’s son as stated by St. Matthew. (George Salmon, “Africanus, Julius,” ed. William Smith and Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines [London: John Murray, 1877–1887], 54-55)
Eusebus, in his Ecclesiastical History, records the words of Africanus:
1 Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another. Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages, permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us, and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides, where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he gives the account which he had received from tradition in these words:
2 “For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law,—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless; for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—
3 whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both—of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.
4 Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
5 But in order that what I have said may be made clear I shall explain the interchange of the generations. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph. But if, with Luke, we reckon them from Nathan the son of David, in like manner the third from the end is Melchi, whose son Eli was the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Eli, the son of Melchi.
6 Joseph therefore being the object proposed to us, it must be shown how it is that each is recorded to be his father, both Jacob, who derived his descent from Solomon, and Eli, who derived his from Nathan; first how it is that these two, Jacob and Eli, were brothers, and then how it is that their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, although of different families, are declared to be grandfathers of Joseph.
7 Matthan and Melchi having married in succession the same woman, begat children who were uterine brothers, for the law did not prohibit a widow, whether such by divorce or by the death of her husband, from marrying another.
8 By Estha then (for this was the woman’s name according to tradition) Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, first begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who traced his descent back to Nathan, being of the same tribe but of another family, married her, as before said, and begat a son Eli.
9 Thus we shall find the two, Jacob and Eli, although belonging to different families, yet brethren by the same mother. Of these the one, Jacob, when his brother Eli had died childless, took the latter’s wife and begat by her a son Joseph, his own son by nature and in accordance with reason. Wherefore also it is written: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But according to law he was the son of Eli, for Jacob, being the brother of the latter, raised up seed to him.
10 Hence the genealogy traced through him will not be rendered void, which the evangelist Matthew in his enumeration gives thus: ‘Jacob begat Joseph.’ But Luke, on the other hand, says: ‘Who was the son, as was supposed’ (for this he also adds), ‘of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Melchi’; for he could not more clearly express the generation according to law. And the expression ‘he begat’ he has omitted in his genealogical table up to the end, tracing the genealogy back to Adam the son of God. This interpretation is neither incapable of proof nor is it an idle conjecture.
11 For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account: Some Idumean robbers, having attacked Ascalon, a city of Palestine, carried away from a temple of Apollo which stood near the walls, in addition to other booty, Antipater, son of a certain temple slave named Herod. And since the priest was not able to pay the ransom for his son, Antipater was brought up in the customs of the Idumeans, and afterward was befriended by Hyrcanus, the high priest of the Jews.
12 And having been sent by Hyrcanus on an embassy to Pompey, and having restored to him the kingdom which had been invaded by his brother Aristobulus, he had the good fortune to be named procurator of Palestine. But Antipater having been slain by those who were envious of his great good fortune, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was afterward, by a decree of the senate, made King of the Jews under Antony and Augustus. His sons were Herod and the other tetrarchs. These accounts agree also with those of the Greeks.
13 But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.
14 A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.
15 Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing. better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
16 And at the end of the same epistle he adds these words: “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”
17 Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, inter-marriages between different tribes were not permitted. For the command is to marry one of the same family and lineage, so that the inheritance may not pass from tribe to tribe. This may suffice here. (Ecclesiastical History 1.6.1-17, cited in Eusebius of Caesaria, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series [New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890], 91–94)
The Genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew and in Luke:
A Proven Contradiction? Which Explanation is Correct?
This post has looked at three explanations for the differences in the genealogies of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew and Luke. Are they sufficient to set aside the claim of contradiction? Certainly the answer is “yes.” The critic alleging contradiction must prove that there is no possible way of reconciling the two genealogies. He must not only prove that the three explanations given above are unsatisfactory, but that there is no other explanation that ever has been, or ever will, be able to reconcile the two accounts in a satisfactory manner. Such genuine contradictions abound in uninspired religious texts that claim to be from God, such as (for example) the Mormon religious books, which unambiguously teach monotheism in the Book of Mormon and just as unambiguously teach polytheism in the Pearl of Great Price, although both texts are allegedly unchanging truth from the Mormon god (or gods). Unlike such texts, no proven contradictions are found in God’s infallible Word, the Bible.
The three explanations above for the genealogies also illustrate another important fact. There may be simple options, such as the one offered by Archer and the second one offered by Smith, while the truth itself may be a more complicated option that we would not easily think of. Until I read Africanus’ explanation I do not believe it ever crossed my mind–yet, as a very old explanation that claims to have been received from the descendants of Mary and Joseph themselves, it deserves to be taken seriously. Thus, even if we cannot think of a good explanation for an alleged contradiction at the moment does not mean that one does not exist.
So which explanation is correct? I am not sure which explanation is correct, but I am sure that there is an explanation, because God does not contradict Himself or lie. I lean towards the explanation of Africanus as recorded in Eusebius because it seems reasonable that the children of Joseph and Mary would know their own family history and it likewise seems probable that Africanus has reliable information. However, the most important point is not which explanation is correct, but that there is an explanation, for God does not lie or contradict Himself.
–TDR
New Testament Greek, Bill Mounce, 1st Semester Videos Online
I am thankful to announce that all the videos teaching the first semester of Biblical Greek are now online! The main textbook used is William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek. Either the 3rd or the 4th edition of that text works well. (I prefer some features of the 3rd and some other features of the 4th edition; overall, they are similar enough that either one will work with the class.) The entire playlist is on YouTube, and the videos are also being put up at Faithsaves.net and on Rumble. We thank God for the work that has been done. Lord willing, the second semester videos will also all be made available. If you are interested in helping to edit videos and so help train spiritual leaders for the kingdom of God, or you know someone who can help with this ministry, please contact me. You can also pray for us. Learning the Biblical languages is very valuable, and it is our prayer and hope that these videos will not only help those who have physical teachers, but also enable God’s people to learn Greek all around the world, even when they who do not have the privilege of a physical teacher. A physical teacher is very helpful–and, Lord willing, I will offer the class personally again in the future, as I have offered it in the past–but I believe a dedicated student can teach himself Greek with the textbooks and answer keys here, although it is not as easy to do as it is if one has a professor to help. I also want these videos to help people learn Biblical Greek from a Biblical, separatist, militant Baptist position, instead of from the point of non-separatist evangelicalism–the doctrinal position of Bill Mounce, who is a great Greek teacher, but not so great in his doctrine and practice. Furthermore, we use the Textus Receptus and support the King James Version in the class, rather than utilizing modern Bible versions and their inferior Greek text, the Nestle-Aland.
If you want to help people get Biblical, Baptist, separatist training in the Biblical languages and theology, please feel free to recommend and send links about my class to the various websites where online Greek classes are compared and offered. I don’t have time to look into all of those, but the more places that link to it, the better. I would be fine if evangelicals learn Greek from someone with Biblical Baptist convictions and get moved towards that position. Thanks!
–TDR
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Two)
Proper Evaluation of History
God promised the preservation of scripture, but not the preservation of history. Since God promised the preservation of scripture, He insures that with a high level of divine intervention. The Bible says much about this. Since God doesn’t promise to preserve history, we must judge history in a different way. We must weigh it.
The history of the people and events of history differs in nature than the history of Christian doctrine. Believers can open the Bible, which God preserved, and compare the history of Christian doctrine with what the Bible says. Especially the doctrine found in what people call “the church fathers” diverges from biblical doctrine and practice. Biblical doctrine and practice and the church fathers have many dissimilarities.
An important part of good historical evaluation is observing historical influences on beliefs, practices, and methods. The Bible itself helps with this ability in a sufficient way. Already in the first century, external factors affected what the church believed. This is all over the New Testament. Keeping false doctrine out of the church required and requires tremendous vigilance.
The Trajectory of External Influences on the Church
New Testament Times
If one just looked at an epistle like 1 Corinthians, chapter after chapter chronicle both external and internal influences on the church at Corinth. People over emphasized the effect of baptism in chapter one. They also devalued preaching as a method for what Paul calls “signs” and “wisdom.” In chapter two, people were placing higher value on naturalism over supernaturalism. Greek philosophy that denigrated the place of the physical body led to acceptance of sexual sin in chapters five and six. The same kind of false teaching on the body led to mass denial of bodily resurrection in chapter fifteen.
One could keep moving through the entire New Testament and do something very similar to the samples of the previous paragraph. God wants us to see how false doctrine and practice enters the church and then takes hold. Revelation two and three chronicle seven churches and varied degrees of departure from the truth, even to the extent that the Laodicean church in Revelation three had already apostatized. Jesus and John tell history as a warning with the seven churches about both the internal and external attacks.
The Roman Empire and Greek Philosophy
The persecution of the Roman Empire affected churches in the first century. This parallels with anything and any place where persecution occurs. People accommodate the pressure and change from biblical belief and practice. The pressure of Sodom affected Lot and his family. The world itself corrupted Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).
Many other external factors changed and change thinking. This is why Paul warns against philosophies and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). Theologians like Origen invented their own subjective approach to interpretation of scripture. Many others accepted then Origen’s way. Some read so much Greek philosophy, available during the period of the church fathers, that they took on the thinking of the Greek philosophers. Include Augustine among those. Greek philosophy doesn’t mix with the Bible and improve it. It corrupts it.
When Paul says “wisdom” in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he, like James in James 3:15, meant human wisdom, which could be intellectualism, naturalism, rationalism, or human reasoning. The false teachers that Peter battled as seen in his second epistle judged according to their own reasoning, attempting to conform their theology to that.
Syncretism
An important term to understand is “syncretism.” Wikipedia gets it right when it says in its entry on syncretism:
Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.
People mix two different philosophies, ideas, concepts, or beliefs and out of the two becomes something brand new, a hybrid, which contrasts with the ones from which it came. The false worship of Israel arose from syncretism, mixing Israel’s divine, scriptural worship with pagan or idolatrous worship practices.
Comparison with the True Church
The church doctrine and practice of the church fathers does not look like the church in the New Testament. The church fathers represent a path that diverts from the true path of the New Testament churches. As I wrote in part one, almost entirely they read as proto-Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism came from somewhere and this is easy to see. It’s no wonder that for centuries Roman Catholicism did not want people to read the Bible on their own. When they read it, they would see the differences.
It is easy to see in history what happened when people were reading the Bible and comparing it with Roman Catholicism. People left Roman Catholicism. They knew that wasn’t the truth. Based on reading scripture, they separated from Roman Catholicism. As well, true churches never joined that path in the first place. True churches always existed and people joined with them who left Roman Catholicism based on reading or hearing scripture. They also needed courage because Roman Catholicism through the years would kill them for disagreeing.
Roman Catholicism and the Church Fathers
Roman Catholicism preserved the church fathers. They served Roman Catholic mission and goals. Roman Catholicism uses the church fathers as their evidence of a historical trail. Roman Catholic apologists point to the church fathers as evidence of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
The authority and military of the Roman Empire served Roman Catholicism. The denomination itself took on qualities of an Empire and enforced the doctrine and practice. Ultimately, it would not allow for challenge. This produced an inauthentic history of a church. It never was the church. The Roman Catholic Church always was a pseudo-church, posing as one. It keeps people fooled and strapped into false religion. The church fathers offer a major contribution to the deceit and destruction.
Today evangelicals embrace the church fathers. They point to them as a part of their own history. This supposes that God used Roman Catholicism to keep the truth. It isn’t true and it doesn’t even make sense. This doesn’t just provide a cover for the error. It sends people down the wrong path.
The Example of Baptismal Regeneration
A good example of the deceit and danger of the church fathers relates to the teaching of baptismal regeneration. The church fathers taught baptismal regeneration. The Bible doesn’t teach that. It teaches against it. Roman Catholicism among other kinds of deeds and rituals requires baptism as a condition for salvation. Protestants did not make a full turn from Roman Catholic doctrine with their acceptance of infant sprinkling. This dovetailed with the Roman Catholic view that the church was the worldwide kingdom of God on earth.
In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter that He was building His church on the gospel. His church has a true gospel. The church fathers undermined the gospel and the church that arose from that teaching was a false one. It was Roman Catholicism and its state church.
More to Come
Church Planting Methodology: Where Should a New Church Meet?
In relation to church planting, where should a new church meet? On this blog we have, in the past, learned the history of how Bethel Baptist Church in El Sobrante, CA was started by Jesus Christ; see part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 on that encouraging topic. Grace and Truth Baptist Church is a new church planting work in San Francisco that is seeking to follow the Lord and obey and practice all of Scripture. They currently do not have a building to meet, and the preacher there–a friend of mine for many years–had discussed the qustion with me, and asked us to pray for them, as they sought a place to meet. I asked the advice of a number of Baptist preachers, pastors, and missionaries / evangelists concerning the pluses and minuses of a variety of options concerning places to meet. With their permission, I have shared their responses below. Please feel free to comment on these responses and share any Biblical thoughts or practical experiences you have concerning them. (The response have been lightly edited for things like grammar and material that was not related to this question in this post was removed.) I asked the following question:
Church Planting Methodology:
Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? The Question
… I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the meeting place for a new church plant’s meeting place. What are the advantages of renting a place in:
1.) A store front-type location, vs.
2.) A church building that is in use by a different congregation, vs.
3.) A home?
In terms of #2, do you have any thoughts on a church property that is by a weak Baptist religious organization, vs. some other religious organization (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) or even a cult meeting house (Seventh-Day Adventists that do not use their building on the Lord’s Day)?
I am wondering if a neo-evangelical or even modernistic Baptist congregation that allowed a separatist Baptist church-plant to use its facility could end up confusing visitors to the new separatist church plant. Certainly nobody would want people to end up joining a cult or becoming a Pentecostal by meeting in a church building of those religions, but perhaps the differences would be more obvious and that would be less likely than with a compromised Baptist congregation offering its meeting place (?) I am wondering if many people would not be willing to meet in a home (although Biblically there is nothing wrong with it).
So any Biblical exegesis, application of Biblical principles, or other Biblically-based ideas you have would be appreciated. Feel free to share this email with someone else if you think that that third party brother would have some good advice here. …
Church Planting Methodology:
Where Should A New Church-Plant Meet? Reply #1
Just my thoughts based on what I see in the Scriptures and what I have experienced. The place is not the main thing, but the assembly. Therefore, if you start assembling at your house that would be great, or another brother’s house, that is good. If you and the members decide to rent a facility, then, together as a church you can decide to do that and finance that as a church body (Amen). If you decide to rent a space (commercial space or have some type of agreement for a space with another “church” or religious entity – that too is fine (remember Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus – were places that facilitated a temporary meeting place for the churches) – then rent it out as a church, do your best NOT to assume the payment of the rent alone BUT function as a church body (rent it together as a church). THEN, if and when the Lord would add to your assembly – a more suitable and stable place could be acquired (again, at that point you will move on to a building – as a church body, purchasing the building, etc). I see no problem using a SDA building, space, or hotel conference room, nursing home lobby, library hall, community hall, etc. Religious or not. It is the assembly that matters – not the meeting place, per se.
Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #2
Hi,
I wouldn’t like renting a false religion place when it wasn’t meeting. I would rather have the storefront. Meeting in the home, I would do that too.
Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #3
Meeting in SDA building wasn’t really my original plan. But I’m in a market that is high priced with very few options, and it has worked. We don’t really have any contact with the SDAs here. Most of them are from Africa, as we have a large group of refugees/immigrants in [town]. We use their building on Sunday and for the most part it has worked. The positives are that it is a place to meet that usually is inexpensive, with very little setup, and we put signage out on Sundays to limit confusion. We also put our hymn books and some Bibles in the pews and remove theirs in setting up. We are also careful to leave things better than we found them. So we haven’t worn out our welcome.
As far as negatives, for the most part they keep things kinda tidy but there is often some clean up or cleaning to do before Sunday morning. Also, the building here is rather old.
I think the biggest challenge is communicating to people where your church is. I say clearly that we rent the 7th Day Building on Sundays. Or if we do advertising I put the address and underneath “also the SDA Building.”
Also depending upon how strict your SDA group is they might ask you to not serve pork if you have a meal there.
We have a different building where we try to do special functions like special meetings. We will have a Good Friday fellowship at the other venue. It provides a neutral place for people to invite friends to hear the gospel. Just an idea. We also do a turducken feast in November. Last year it brought over 40 visitors to hear the gospel. My point you don’t have to be limited by a building. We still use multiple locations. It’s not easy but is what we have to work with.
In the summer we do a lot outdoors BBQ’s (it is amazing who will show up for an hotdog and hamburger and some friendship), outreach and midweek Bible Study/prayer meetings.
Unfortunately, people do like an identity with a building. So that in itself is a negative; curb appeal is a big help in church planting but not always possible.
Lastly I will say that a large number of Baptist churches in [our state in the USA] used an SDA building in the beginning. Some had good experience some not. I know of one where some of the SDA members started attending the Baptist church and realized the error that they were being taught hence they lost their welcome. That’s not a bad thing; I try to always have a plan B. I think that if something like that happens God will provide for the next step.
On a personal note we are praising the Lord here. We have almost finished paying off the parsonage and property we have, so we are getting close to having our own building as the Lord provides.
Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #4
Just prayed that God would guide and direct you in this matter.
I think each option you listed can have its pros and cons depending on the community and culture of the people you are trying to reach.
A store front can be more visible, but it can often give the vibes of rinky-dink. It could also be a bit more pricey.
A church building that is used by another group can give off the feeling of being “churchy,” but it can put off some people that don’t want to go in a church building. I know of a church planter in [a place] that is using a 7th Day Adventist building. You could ask his opinion on how it is working … However, at the end of the day a building is just a building.
A home can be a good place to hold a Bible study, but I think in today’s culture it could put a great many people off. Have you considered something more neutral such as a community center, school function room, or something similar?
Some practical things to consider when seeking a place to rent:
– location, location, location: easy access, parking, will some people be put off by the surrounding area?
– facilities in the building: kitchen, disabled access, parking
– how long will you be able to meet in that location
When I was looking for a place to rent, I prayed about it and then just started calling different facilities to see where the open door might be. We had a fairly easy decision, because our current location was the only available place to rent.
When I sought the Lord about where to plant a church, I also considered the need of the area. Was there a gospel preaching church in the community? If so, were they active in evangelism and discipleship?
Various thoughts: within the bounds of Scripture, Paul and Barnabas were sent out from an assembly where they were faithfully ministering. Acts 12. Paul adapted how he lived and ministered for the sake of the Gospel, 1 Cor 9:19-23. Paul immediately obeyed the Lord’s leading, Acts 16:10.
I trust God will make the way clear and plain for you.
Where Should A New Church Plant Meet? Reply #5
Good morning … I have done all 3 of these.
You have some considerations…
- if you are looking to save money…the home is best.
- If you are looking at most appealing for people to walk into off the street … another church building
- If you are looking to start from scratch … I prefer Jesus’ model.
Win people one by one … meet in the house of the key man … man of peace. This will be the person who is the common connection between the ones you are working with and the home will be no problem because they all know this man.
Then keep reaching key men and meeting in different homes with those in that connection group.
Finally combine the groups once you have people saved and committed to following Christ. Now you look for a meeting place.
By far I prefer Jesus’ method … although I realize this is not the American way.
Hope it makes some sense.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Church Planting Methodology: Questions About The Answers
I appreciate the Baptist brethren in Christ who took the time to share these answers with me. In relation to their responses, the following questions come up.
Are there issues about associations in relation to meeting in a place that pertains to a false religion? It is true that Solomon’s porch, synagogues, and the school of Tyrannus (mentioned in response #1) were not places associated with Christianity, but none of them were the Temple of Diana, either. Solomon’s porch and the synagogues were associated with the God of Israel, while the school of Tyrannus was not associated with a specific false religion. It looks like response #2 shares those concerns, in contrast to response #3, which is willing to meet in the building owned by a cult, the Seventh-Day Adventist “Church.”
Is there a difference between utilizing the meeting place of a cult (Seventh-Day Adventism, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostalism) and the meeting place where there are disobedient brethren (non-separatist evangelicals)? How much difference does it make if the people in the false religion, or the disobedient brethren, are around (Sunday meeting) or not (Sabbath worshippers)? Does Paul preaching in synagogues after Christ had already established His church and turned away from Israel as His institution help answer this question?
How does the question of “curb appeal” factor in? Scripture does not teach that one has to have a building at all, but does meeting in a building rather than a home relate to loving one’s neighbor as oneself? How much of a factor is it that more people will be willing to visit in a church building than in a home? Is that even true? (Response #4 suggests it is not necessarily the case). How much of a factor is being “rinky-dink” (as response #4 brings up)?
Response #3 referred to the practices of a number of Baptist churches in that brother’s state. What lessons can be learned from Baptist history on this question? Response #3 also seemed to lean more towards a “go and invite to church” versus “Go ye into all the world and preach” (Mark 16:15) philosophy. How does the question of whether the assembly is a place geared to evangelize the lost, versus a place to edify and equip the saints so they can go into the world and preach to the lost (Ephesians 4:12), impact the question of a meeting place? How is the question of a meeting place affected if a church is seeking to grow by making disciples who can knock on doors and evangelize themselves, versus a church having an emphasis on inviting many children into the building by giving them candy and toys, and inviting targeted groups of adults into the building with various special events and give-aways?
The point in response #4 about building facilities, such as parking, a kitchen, and disabled access are important. I have no idea what laws and regulations relate to a church meeting in someone’s home. Does the home need to be ADA compliant and have wheelchair access (for example)? Does it need to have a certain number of fire extinguishers?
Response #4 also brought up the question of the surrounding area. How do factors such as the crime rate, or racial demographics, impact a meeting place’s location?
How much of a factor is how long one plans to meet, in God’s sovereign timing, at a particular place?
Response #5 was the most different, and, it seems, was advocating something where the method had the most significance. While responses #1-4 expressed a variety of levels of agreement and disagreement, in general the idea was that the location was not all that important (with the exception of some responses arguing that one should not meet in the building of a false religion). However, response #5 is arguing that a specific model is found in the ministry of the Lord Jesus. Who would want to do something other than what Christ did?
In relation to response #5, reference was made to Luke 10:6-7:
And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Does this verse prove that we should be looking for a key man in whose house a church plant should meet? The passage refers to Christ sending out 70 disciples to evangelize Israel. Were churches established in these places, and, if not, how does that affect the application of this passage? Are there dispensational factors here we need to consider? Does the pattern change from the Gospels into Acts and the Epistles? Do we see the evangelists in Acts looking for a “son of peace” in this way? In light of the broad use of the Biblical “son of” language, how much should we conclude from the “son of peace” language? Is there a difference between simply preaching to “every creature” (Mark 16:15) and focusing on reaching key men? Are they inclusive of each other or exclusive, and to what degree the one or the other? In a big city can we be seeking to reach “every creature,” yet meeting in a home not be an issue, because everyone coming to church knows the “son of peace”?
Church Planting Methodology: What Do You Think?
What do you think? How should church planting ministry be undertaken?
–TDR
King James Bible Onlyism & No Pre-Christian LXX Ruckmanism
Peter Ruckman, King James Bible Only or King James Only extremist, denied (after a fashion) that the LXX or Greek Septuagint existed before the times of Jesus Christ. Ruckman wrote:
Finally we proved, by documented attestation from dozens of sources (pp. 40–68), that no such animal as a B.C. “Septuagint” (LXX) ever existed before the completion of the New Testament. We listed ALL of the LXX manuscripts, including the papyri (pp. 45, 48–51). There was not to be found ONE manuscript or ONE Old Testament Greek “Bible,” not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A.D. 150, that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted. Not ONE. And even the date A.D. 150 is “fudging,” for Aquila’s “Septuagint,” (supposedly written between A.D. 128 and 140), was not published by Origen till after A.D. 220. Aquila’s text (A.D. 128–150) is not extant; it has not been extant since A.D. 6.
No apostle quoted any part of Ryland’s papyrus 458 (150 B.C. supposedly). Not ONCE since our first book was published (Manuscript Evidence, 1970), has any Christian scholar in England, Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas (representing ANY University, College, Seminary, or Bible Institute—Christian or otherwise), ever produced ONE verse of ONE part of any verse of a Greek Old Testament written before A.D. 220. (see above) that ANY New Testament writer quoted. This means that 5,000–6,000 lying jacklegs had been given twenty-seven years to produce ONE piece of evidence for the Greek Septuagint the New Testament writers were supposed to have been quoting. In twenty-seven years, the whole Scholars’ Union couldn’t come up with ONE verse. They “stressed out.” As a modern generation would say: “totally outta here!” (Peter Ruckman, The Mythological Septuagint, pg. 6
Before the time of Ruckman, I am not aware of any serious advocate of King James Onlyism, the Textus Receptus, or the perfect preservation of Scripture who denied that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. This is because a Ruckmanite denial of a pre-Christian LXX is historically indefensible. The King James translators certainly believed that the LXX existed before the times of Christ. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and who consequently believe in the Greek Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, should reject Ruckman’s historically indefensible and confused argument. The KJVO movement should purge itself of Ruckmanite influences, including in this area.
Please note that–as is typical for Ruckman–his argument quoted above is confusing and incoherent. It seems that he is arguing that there is no such thing as a B. C. LXX, and that there is not “ONE manuscript … not ONE Greek fragment or ONE piece of a Greek fragment written before A. D. 150.” From Ruckman’s foul well, the idea that there is no pre-Christian LXX has spread to many quarters. But note Ruckman’s incredible qualification: “that ANY apostle quoted, or that Jesus Christ quoted.” Many readers will miss this astonishing qualification, for Ruckman, even in his radical anti-LXX book, indicates full awareness that there are papyrus fragments of the LXX that exist (e. g., Rylands papyrus 458) and that are pre-Christian. So now some KJVO advocates, through making the unwise decision to read Ruckman and then misreading him, are arguing that the LXX did not exist before the times of Origen, which is totally indefensible.
Rylands papyrus 458: Pre-Christian Evidence For the LXX
In addition to such small fragments, it is probable that we have an entire Greek scroll of the minor prophets from Nahal Hever that is pre-Christian. But even the small fragments above demonstrate the existence of the book from which the fragments come.
Nor is it wise to dismiss the documentary evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas. (Have you ever read it? You should, at least if you are going to comment on whether there was a pre-Christian Septuagint or not. At least it isn’t full of carnal language and racism like Ruckman’s works). If you actually read the Letter of Aristeas you will see that it not only speaks of the translation of the Old Testament into Greek centuries before the times of Christ, but it says that there were already multiple Greek versions extant before the LXX was made. Is the Letter to Aristeas infallible history, like Scripture? Of course not. Should we just dismiss everything it says and conclude there is no historical basis for any of it? No, we should not do that either. We would not have much world history left if we dismissed every source completely if we found any errors in it. Furthermore, Philo and Josephus discuss the Septuagint, as do many writers in early Christendom. It would be very strange for all of these sources to be discussing a translation that did not even exist yet. It is actually very much expected that the Jews would translate the Old Testament into Greek, since pre-Christian Judaism was an evangelistic, missionary religion that sought to spread the knowledge of the true God to the whole world.
Within a lot of confusion, carnality, and equivocation in Ruckman’s argument, there are certain elements of truth within his comments on the LXX. Others have made these points in a much more clear and much less confusing way, including in blog posts concerning the LXX on this What is Truth? blog. (See also here, here, and others.) What truths should KJVO people hold to in relation to the LXX?
1.) The LXX was never the final authority for the Lord Jesus and the Apostles; the final authority was always the Hebrew text (Matthew 5:18). They never quoted the LXX where it mistranslated the Hebrew. Indeed, since most scribes of the LXX were in the realm of Christendom, there is every reason to think that they would backtranslate NT quotations into the LXX text. Unlike the nutty idea that there was no pre-Christian LXX, the idea that scribes would move NT quotations back into Greek LXX manuscripts is well-supported and has been advocated widely, from people like John Owen in the past to the evangelical authors Jobes and Silva in their modern introduction to the LXX. (Please see my discussion and quotations of this matter in slides 155ff. from my King James Only debate with James White.) That the LXX was never the final authority does not mean that the NT writers never quoted or alluded to the LXX. Modern KJVO evangelists or missionaries to, say, China may quote the Chinese Bible where it is an accurate translation, but not where it differs from the preserved Greek text accurately translated in the KJV. There is no reason to say that, where the LXX accurately translates the preserved Hebrew text, the NT does not quote or allude to it. There is reason to say that this does not happen where the LXX is inaccurate.
2.) Speaking of the LXX does not mean that there was a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. Indeed, both the ancient sources such as the Letter of Aristeas and significant parts of modern scholarship on the LXX recognize that there were multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was no “THE” LXX in the sense of a single, authoritative, universally recognized translation. The LXX did, however, exist in the sense that the Old Testament was translated into Greek, more than once, before the times of Christ.
3.) Instead of pretending that the Septuagint is a myth, King James Only advocates should reject the Ruckmanite fable that the LXX did not exist before the times of Christ and instead advocate the position held by pre-Ruckman defenders of the Received Text and of the KJV (and which has never been wholly abandoned by perfect preservationists for the Ruckmanite myth), namely, that the LXX is a valuable tool for understanding the linguistic and intellectual background of the New Testament, but it is never the final authority for the Old Testament–the Hebrew words perfectly preserved by God are always the final authority (Matthew 5:18). Christ, who as Man was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, would almost certainly have delighted to read the Greek LXX, although He would have had a holy hatred for the mistranslations in it and been grieved at how in some books it is much less literal than in other texts (the Pentateuch is quite literal; some books of the Writings, not so much). The Son of Man, the best of all preachers as the incarnate Word, would have had perfect grasp of the Hebrew text and would also be aware of what the Greek Bible said. Recognizing that many of those to whom He would preach the gospel would not know Hebrew, and wanting to minister to them in the most effective way, he would have had a mastery of the Greek Old Testament as well as the Hebrew Bible. A missionary to Japan would read the Bible in Japanese so he could effectively minister to the Japanese. The Lord Jesus and those who followed His example among His Apostles and other disciples would have read the Bible in Greek so that they could minister to those who spoke only the world language-Greek. I would recommend that those who have gained fluency in New Testament Greek, and have read their Greek New Testament cover to cover, go on to read through the LXX as well, as it provides valuable background to the New Testament. They should, however, like their resurrected Lord, recognize that the LXX is never the final authority for the Old Testament. They should rejoice in the Greek Bible when it is accurate, grieve when it is inaccurate, and always make the perfectly preserved Hebrew text their final authority as they study, preach, teach, love and obey the Old Testament.
–TDR
King James Bible & Sam Gipp, Peter Ruckman & Gail Riplinger
Who is King James Only Advocate Sam Gipp?
Sam Gipp is an extremist defender of the King James Bible (also known as the King James Version or Authorized Version) of 1611 (KJB / KJV / AV). Gipp has been heavily influenced by the “Baptist” heretic Peter Ruckman, having graduated from Ruckman’s Bible institute, and having received an honorary doctorate from Ruckman’s educational institution. His views are also very similar to those of Ms. Gail Riplinger. Thus, Sam Gipp is a representative of Ruckman’s brand of King James Onlyism (KJVO).
While I strongly disagree with Mr. Gipp on his Ruckmanism, I am thankful that he preaches the gospel, as far as I know, and I trust that people have been born again through his preaching. I rejoice that there will be people in heaven who are there because the Spirit used the Word through the (very!) imperfect vessel of a Ruckmanite preacher (Mark 9:38-39; Philippians 1:15-18).
I do not know if Mr. Gipp agrees with Ruckman’s gospel-corrupting heresy that people in different periods of time have been and will be saved by faith and works together, although if Gipp does not agree with it, he certainly does not separate from and plainly warn about Peter Ruckman’s false gospel and tell everyone to separate from Ruckman and his many heresies and blasphemies. Gipp does follow Ruckman in calling black people “nig–r”; he calls on white people to start regularly using this inappropriate term for blacks. He also makes foolish statements that undermine the gospel and will cause unbiblical offense (Mark 9:42), such as: “I hope you racists enjoyed this racist rant by a fellow racist. Tell your racist friends about it.” (Sam Gipp, “‘Racist’ the New ‘N-word,’ August 1, 2020. Bold print reproduced from the original.)
Dr. Gipp also agrees with Ruckman’s unbiblical KJVO extremism. For example, in Gipp’s Answer Book, he says: “The King James Version we have today … is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not … in the Greek Received Text” (pg. 24; note that the KJV is not said to be authoritative because it accurately translates the ultimately authoritative Greek text, but is allegedly authoritative independent of the Greek Received Text.). “QUESTION #30: The King James Bible is a mere translation from Greek to English. A translation can’t be as good as the originals, can it? ANSWER: A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better” (pg. 69; the humorous and embarrassingly bad reason provided is that when Enoch and others were “translated” to heaven, they were better afterwards than before, along with two other texts where the English word “translation” appears that have absolutely nothing to do with rendering the Bible from one language to another.). People should be “convinced that the King James Bible is the infallible Word of God” and therefore “remove those little so called ‘nuggets’ from the imperfect Greek” (pg. 115) to study only the English of the King James Version. Gipp’s Answer Book offers many words of praise for Peter Ruckman (pg. 89) but not one syllable of warning.
Sam Gipp: Ruckmanite Extremism
I recently was at an event where Christians from a variety of backgrounds were present. I was able to have a conversation with a sincere Christian man who, unfortunately, had been strongly influenced by Sam Gipp’s view on the King James Bible. (I would not be surprised if he simply wanted to have certainty about Scripture rather than really being excited about Ruckman’s claims of alien breeding facilities run by the government, Ruckman’s carnal language, and so on.) A friend of mine mentioned to him that I had debated James White on the King James Version. This brother in Christ asked me what I thought of Gipp. I said I would be happy to debate him, too. (That was the Biblically faithful answer, but not the answer this Christian brother wanted to hear, I suspect.) I would indeed be happy to debate Dr. Gipp on a proposition such as: “Because God has preserved His Word in the English language, study of the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture is detrimental or, at best, useless.” If Gipp will affirm this, I will deny it in any venue that is, within reason, mutually agreeable to both of us. I can be reached through the “contact us” page here if Dr. Gipp is open.
This Christian brother influenced by Mr. Gipp proceeded to argue that nobody really knew Greek, because it is a dead language. He seemed to think that there is no reason to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture (a conclusion also advocated by fellow KJVO radical Ms. Gail Riplinger in her book Hazardous Materials: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers).
When I asked this sincere Christian brother if he knew where the actual Greek words spoken by Christ and recorded by Matthew, Mark, and the other New Testament writers. were, he said that he did not know where the Greek words of the New Testament were; but he believed the King James Version was perfect. This Christian man referred to an argument made by Gipp in his Answer Book allegedly proving that agapao and phileo have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” (pg. 93, Answer Book–capitalization in the original) in meaning because it is not easy to backtranslate them from English into Greek, and, therefore, there is no need to look at Greek for anything (pgs. 93-94). What Gipp’s argument actually proves is that backtranslating is no easy matter and that the phileo and agapao word groups have significant overlap in their semantic domain; the leap from conclusions about these specific words to the conclusion that Greek is useless is breathtaking and totally without merit, of course. One could, with the same argument, prove that clearly distinct Hebrew and Greek words for miracles are absolutely synonymous, or prove that any number of other words that have overlap in their semantic domains actually have “absolutely NO DIFFERENCE” in meaning.
Sam Gipp’s Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Violates Scripture
There are a number of reasons why I disagreed with my dear brother and his advocacy of Ruckmanism as filtered through Sam Gipp.
First, and most importantly, his position is unscriptural. It denies the perfect preservation of Scripture, instead arguing for a sort of restoration of an unknown and lost Bible. When the Lord Jesus said:
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4).
He was teaching that man must live by every single one of the Hebrew and Greek words that were penned by Moses, the Old Testament prophets, and (proleptically) by the New Testament apostles. The Lord Jesus was not talking about English words when He spoke Matthew 4:4 in Greek. When Isaiah 59:21 says that God’s Words would be in the mouths of every generation of the saints from the time that they were inspired and forever into the future, the Holy Ghost through Isaiah was not making a promise about English words. The words that were in the mouths and in the hearts of the saints, near them and not far off (Romans 10:6-9; Deuteronomy 30) were not English words, but Hebrew and Greek words (and, of course, a little bit of Aramaic). When David and his greater Son rejoiced in the pure words of God that would be preserved forever (Psalm 12:6-7), He was speaking about Hebrew words, not English words. Hebrew has jots and tittles (Matthew 5:18)–the Lord speaks of the smallest Hebrew consonant, the yod, and the smallest Hebrew mark on the page, the vowel chireq (a single dot; consider also the Hebrew accents). When this Christian brother said that he did not know where the Greek and Hebrew words of God were, he was denying the perfect preservation of Scripture. Ruckmanism is too weak on the preservation of Scripture.
Second, the Ruckmanism of Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger, which denies that one should utilize Hebrew and Greek, changes God’s glorious and beautiful revelation into hiddenness. God is not hiding Himself in His Hebrew and Greek words. He is, in ineffable beauty and glory, revealing Himself. To downplay in any way the very words chosen by the Father, spoken by Christ, and dictated by the Holy Spirit through the original authors of Scripture is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% wrong to say that we should not look at or study those words. No, we must love them, trust in them, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them, and (if necessary) die for them. I do not doubt the sincerity of my Christian brother who was influenced by Gipp, but it is wickedness to downplay in any way the actual words spoken by the Holy Spirit because of something as ridiculous as the fact that Enoch was better off when he was “translated.”
The two reasons above are the most important ones. Ruckmanism violates Scripture’s promises of preservation and changes the original language words that were the delight of our sinless Savior upon earth, and for which the New Testament Christians were willing to die, into a closed book.
Ruckmanism is Wrong Because It Simply Is Not True
There are also many other reasons why Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger are wrong when they tell people not to look at the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture. There actually are many “wondrous things” (Psalm 119:18) that God has placed in the Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture for His children’s instruction and delight, from puns to elements of poetry to syntactical structural markers and discourse elements, that do not show up in even a perfectly accurate English translation. (You can see many of these in my study on why learning Greek and Hebrew is valuable, especially for Christian leaders). Unfortunately, Sam Gipp in his Answer Book does not even acknowledge, much less deal with, these facts. He assumes that ascribing value to Greek and Hebrew necessarily means the English of the Authorized Version is inaccurate, when that simply does not follow. For example, consider Acts 5:34-42:
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
:34 ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος, ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος, τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχύ τι τοὺς ἀποστόλους ποιῆσαι. 35 εἶπέ τε πρὸς αὐτούς, Ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις, τί μέλλετε πράσσειν. 36 πρὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἀνέστη Θευδᾶς, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, ᾧ προσεκολλήθη ἀριθμὸς ἀνδρῶν ὡσεὶ τετρακοσίων· ὃς ἀνῃρέθη, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διελύθησαν καὶ ἐγένοντο εἰς οὐδέν. 37 μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη Ἰούδας ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, καὶ ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ· κἀκεῖνος ἀπώλετο, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι ἐπείθοντο αὐτῷ διεσκορπίσθησαν. 38 καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων, καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς· ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 39 εἰ δὲ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό, μήποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε. 40 ἐπείσθησαν δὲ αὐτῷ· καὶ προσκαλεσάμενοι τοὺς ἀποστόλους, δείραντες παρήγγειλαν μὴ λαλεῖν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτούς.41 οἱ μὲν οὖν ἐπορεύοντο χαίροντες ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ συνεδρίου, ὅτι ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ κατηξιώθησαν ἀτιμασθῆναι.42 πᾶσάν τε ἡμέραν, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ κατ’ οἶκον, οὐκ ἐπαύοντο διδάσκοντες καὶ εὐαγγελιζόμενοι Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν.
In this passage, Gamaliel makes the famous statement that if the Christian religion “be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” The translation in the King James Version is perfectly accurate. However, Greek has several different ways to express the conditional idea of an “if” clause. A Greek 1st class conditional clause assumes the reality of the condition, while a Greek 3rd class conditional clause ranges from probability to possibility; it is the difference between a petite woman struggling with heavy groceries telling a muscular body builder, “If you are so strong, help me!” (that would be a Greek 1st class conditional) and one of two evenly-matched boxers in a ring saying, “If I win our boxing match, I will be the champion” (which would be expressed using a Greek 3rd class conditional). In Acts 5, Gamaliel’s “if this counsel or this work be of men” is a Greek 3rd class conditional clause, while “if it be of God …” is a 1st class conditional. Gamaliel’s balancing a 3rd class with a 1st class conditional clause indicates that he assumes–correctly–that what the Apostles was preaching was actually from God, and the Jewish leadership could not overthrow it–indeed, attempting to do so was to fight against God.
There is nothing wrong with the KJV’s translation of this passage–English simply does not have different words for “if” like Greek does, and that is not the KJV translators’ fault. The Authorized Version is perfectly accurate, but there still is value in studying the Greek words dictated by the Holy Ghost through Luke. Is this a question of a major doctrine? No, of course not. But does it affect how an expository preacher explains this passage? Yes. Why should the hungry children of God not have everything that their Father wants for them? Why should some of the food the Good Shepherd has for His little lambs in the infallible Greek words of the Book of Acts be kept from them?
The argument of my Christian brother that nobody really knows Koine Greek because it is a dead language (Hebrew seems to be left out of this argument, as it is the living tongue of the nation of Israel) is also invalid. Imagine if someone in China is born again and then adopts a Ruckmanite view of the King James Version. He does not care if he learns to engage in conversation in English–he just wants to read the KJV. His goal is to read a particular written text, not to gain conversational ability. He does a lot of work and becomes fluent in reading Elizabethan English, progressing to the point where he can sight-read and translate into Chinese large portions of the KJV, although he never takes the time to learn how to, say, order a hamburger at McDonalds or talk about the weather tomorrow. Would a Ruckmanite say that this person really does not know English? Would he not say that he has learned what is by far the most important thing in English–learning to read the Bible? Would he say that this Chinese Christian should not use the KJV to shed light on his Chinese Bible? No, he would be completely in favor of this Chinese Christian comparing his Chinese Bible with the King James Version.
Let us say that this same Chinese Christian, as a result of carefully studying his King James Bible, discovers that he should not set aside Greek or Hebrew. He reads verses like: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) and realizes that the KJV itself, by transliterating instead of translating “Anathema” and “Maranatha,” is calling on him to look at the original language text. He therefore learns Greek the same way he learned English. He does not care if he can order a gyro in Koine Greek, or talk about a YouTube video in Koine Greek, but he progresses to the point where he can sight-read large portions of the Greek New Testament and translate it into Chinese. Can we say that this Chinese Christian does not know Greek? Is it wrong for him to use his knowledge of Greek to gain insight into his Chinese Bible? How can we say that he can use English to gain insight into his Chinese Bible, but not Greek?
Furthermore, let me add that, if he is starting from scratch, this Chinese Christian would find mastering the Greek of the New Testament easier than achieving fluency in English. There are the same number of vocabulary words in the Greek New Testament as there are words known by the average four-year-old child, and far fewer words in the Hebrew Old Testament than the average eight-year-old knows. The simple country farmers that were the large majority of the population in ancient Israel, and the slaves and lower-class people who were the large majority of the members of the first century churches, could understand the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Learning the English of the KJV is a harder task (if starting from scratch) than learning the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Because Ruckmanites are–conveniently–overwhelmingly native English speakers, they assume (without proof) that English, with all its irregularities, exceptions, and complications, is an easy language and that Greek and Hebrew are much more difficult, and ask why God would hide his Word in the hard languages of Greek and Hebrew instead of preserving (re-inspiring? re-revealing?) it in the easy English language. It would actually be more accurate to ask: “Why would God hide His Word in the difficult language of modern English, instead of preserving it in the easier languages of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew?” What is more, dare we say that God is not allowed to inspire and preserve a perfect, canonical, complete revelation in a language that becomes a dead language? Has God’s Word failed, because languages change over time? God forbid!
Believe the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible:
Reject Ruckman, Gipp, and Riplinger
There are many other problems with Ruckmanism. Reject Ruckman’s heresies on the gospel, Ruckman’s racism, Ruckman’s carnal spirit, and Ruckman’s many other bizzare doctrines and practices. Reject the extremism on the KJV of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, and Gail Riplinger. Their indefensible position leads many away from the KJV to embrace modern versions. Instead, believe God’s promises of the perfect preservation of His Words. The Hebrew and Greek Textus Receptus contain all the words God inspired and preserved. Since the KJV is a fantastically accurate translation of those inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek Words–the ultimate and final authority for all Christian faith and practice–its English words are authoritative and have the breath of God on them. All Christians in the English-speaking world should be King James Only. None of them should be followers of Peter Ruckman, Sam Gipp, or Gail Riplinger.
–TDR
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text is Based on 0% of Greek MSS: #14
My fourteenth debate review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate on Biblical preservation or King James Onlyism goes through John 13 and examines every single variant between the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and the Received Text or Textus Receptus. It is valuable to those who watched the debate, since it proves that Dr. White cannot be consistent when he attempts to prove the superiority of the Nestle-Aland text and modern English versions by attacking the Received Text based on one word in Ephesians 3:9 and one word that is in some TR editions in Revelation 16:5. His text has orders of magnitude more minority readings than does the Textus Receptus, so his attacks are not just like him pointing one finger at the KJV while four fingers point back at his LSB; rather, it is like a millipede pointing one leg at the KJV while all his other legs are pointing at the LSB.
However, the analysis in this video is also very helpful for those who never end up watching the debate. (I discussed debate-specific matters that relate to what is examined in video #14 in video #13.) While I do not doubt that I am biased, since I created the video, I believe it would be valuable for anyone who is entering the Baptist ministry and is going to confront textual-critical issues, valuable for any student of Biblical Greek who wishes to understand the overall differences between the TR and the NA/UBS Greek text, and valuable for any Christians who wish to have a level of understanding of the matter of Biblical preservation beyond what is rudimentary.
In this video, I demonstrate that in John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times
95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times
99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times
99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times
100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.
Extrapolating for the entire New Testament from John 13, the Nestle-Aland text rejects:
99% of Greek MSS c. 4,680 times
90%+ of Greek MSS c. 11,180 times.
I also demonstrate that in vast numbers of short sections of text the Nestle-Aland text does not look like any known Greek manuscript on the face of the earth, and that even Nestle himself, from whom the Nestle-Aland text is named, recognized that the critical texts extant in his day were a patchwork that never existed in real space and time in textual history. The Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek text is indefensible Scripturally, historically, and rationally.
I would encourage all defenders of God’s preserved Word in the Textus Receptus to learn, understand, and use these facts as they stand for the perfect preservation of Scripture. I believe these facts are not as well known in King James Only circles as they should be.
I also demonstrate in this video some facts about the Textus Receptus and how it compares to printed Majority Text editions that are not well known. While there certainly are minority readings in the TR–approximately 1% of the time when there are variants–and there are good reasons to follow the TR in this small percentage of Greek text for Scriptural and historical reasons–there are also plenty of places in all printed Majority Text or Byzantine Priority editions–whether that of Hodges / Farstad, Robinson / Pierpont, or Pickering–where the printed Majority Text follows a minority of Greek manuscripts while the Textus Receptus follows the majority. In fact, in John 13, while the TR and the Byzantine priority text editions were very close to each other, the TR actually follows the majority of Greek manuscripts in more letters in the chapter than does any printed Majority Text edition. The fact that the TR frequently follows a majority of Greek manuscripts when printed “Majority Text” editions do not is also a fact that is not well known enough in King James Only circles.
You can watch the video using the embedded link below, or view it at FaithSaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube.
These are important facts. Christians who believe in the perfect preservation of God’s Word can rejoice in them. Those who defend modern English versions and the corrupt United Bible Society / Nestle – Aland Greek text from which they are translated need to both understand and explain why these things are so, and why they are defending as God’s Word a patchwork text that never existed in real space and time in the history of textual transmission.
–TDR
2 Thessalonians 2:3 & Pre Trib Rapture: “Day Shall not Come”
People that deny the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints sometimes use 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to argue for their position. Let us examine this verse in its context:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Opponents of the Biblical doctrine of the pretribulational, premillenial Rapture of the saints may argue that “the day of Christ” cannot be “at hand,” that is, it cannot be about to take place, until there “come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” That is, the Antichrist has to be revealed before the Rapture can take place, according to this argument.
However, this argument against the pre-trib Rapture is clearly invalid. The phrase translated “the day of Christ is at hand” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 comes from the Greek hoti enestēken hē hēmera tou Christou. The word enestēken comes from the Greek enistēmi, meaning “to be present”; the sense in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is that “the day of the Lord has come” (BDAG). Some at Thessalonica thought that they were already standing in the time of the Day of Christ; they thought they were already in the Tribulation period, and so they were doing things like no longer going to work at their lawful employments. Paul explains that if they were already standing within the Day of Christ, if they were already present in the Tribulation, then they would see the Antichrist ruling the world, as he is the one who takes power immediately after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1-2). No Antichrist ruling the world? Then they were not in the Tribulation, argues Paul.
The other texts in the New Testament with the verb enistēmi verify this interpretation:
Rom. 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
1Cor. 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Cor. 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Gal. 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
2Th. 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. [“the day of Christ is present.”]
2Tim. 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come [Greek future tense: “perilous times shall be present in the future.”]
Heb. 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
While in English we use the phrase “at hand” in a variety of ways, the Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and its uses elsewhere in the New Testament demonstrate that Paul was warning that if one was actually in the Tribulation period, he would already see the Antichrist in power. Paul was not saying that the Antichrist would arise and then the Day of Christ would start at some point afterwards. Indeed, in the following context, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer who is holding back the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Notice that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter (KJV, “what” withholdeth, to katechon) in 2:6 and a masculine (KJV, “he” who now letteth/restraineth,” ho katechōn) in 2:7. The neuter is used because pneuma, “Spirit / breath / wind,” is grammatically neuter word in Greek (as are all words ending in –ma), but because the Holy Spirit is a Person, He is referred to with a masculine form in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. When will the Spirit be taken away? When the saints are taken away in the Rapture–and then the Antichrist, no longer restrained, will be revealed.
Thus, in context, 2 Thessalonians 2 supports a pre-Trib Rapture, and nothing at all in 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Antichrist must start ruling before the Rapture can take place.
Many other passages support the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints, and refute a mid-Tribulation or post-Tribulation error, including passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4, which have been discussed in other articles on this blog.
–TDR
The Textus Receptus: Based on a Handful of Manuscripts? (Debate Review 13)
Are the Textus Receptus and King James Version based on a mere handful of late Greek manuscripts? In the previous several parts of my review videos about the James White / Thomas Ross debate, we examined James R. White’s astonishingly historically uninformed claims that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side, and the side of modern Bible versions, in our debate over the preservation of Scripture. In part 13 reviewing the James White / Thomas Ross debate on:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
I examine Dr. White’s amazing assertions that modern versions like the Legacy Standard Bible “utiliz[e] far, far more manuscript evidence than was even dreamed of by the KJV translators,” (16:00) while the King James Version and the Textus Receptus is “based upon a handful of manuscripts.” Indeed, Dr. White said that the LSB had “access to manuscripts a solid 1800 to 1200 years older than those used by Erasmus for … the New Testament.” Are these claims valid? They are simply false, and they redound upon his own minority text, which is ACTUALLY based upon a handful of manuscripts—and sometimes far less than a handful!—far more than they are effective against the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible. Find out more by watching the thirteenth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Lord willing, after looking at all the variants in an entire chapter of Scripture to evaluate how the Received Text and the Textus Rejectus do in them in review video #14, we will then move on to evaluate James White’s arguments against the KJV and TR from Acts 5:30, after which we will continue to his arguments from Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5 in subsequent review videos.
–TDR
The KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” King James Onlyism Refuted?
In the James White / Thomas Ross debate “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations” James R. White made the astonishing claim that the “Translators to the Reader” refutes King James Onlyism. I touched on the main points of Dr. White’s claim in previous review videos, and in my twelfth debate review video I examine James White’s final arguments to this end, both from our debate and his book The King James Only Controversy.
James White quotes the preface to prove “the need for translations into other languages.” Of course, White provides no written documentation at all from any pro-Received Text, pro-KJV, or pro-confessional Bibliology source that is against translating the Bible into other languages.
He quotes the Translators to the Reader to prove that the KJV translators “use[d] … many English translations that preceded their work.” Who denies this?
He points out that the preface supports “study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew.” Of course! The large majority of King James Only advocates would agree.
White points out, concerning the KJV translators, that: “Their view that the Word of God is translatable from language to language is plainly spelled out.” Again, White provides no documentation at all of any KJV-Only group who denies that Scripture can be translated from one language to another.
White claims that the KJV translators were “looking into the translations in other languages, consulting commentaries and the like.” Who is denying one should look at commentaries?
White argues: “[T]he KJV translators were not infallible human beings.” Of course, no advocate of perfect preservation is cited who has ever claimed that the KJV translators were “infallible human beings,” just like when White’s King James Only Controversy on page 106 talks about people who think that Beza was inspired, and on page 180-181 about people who think Jerome was inspired, and on page 96 about people who think Erasmus and Stephanus were inspired, no KJV-Only sources are provided who make these ridiculous claims, since, of course, there are no such sources.
Dr. White makes other unsubstantiated and absurd claims. Learn more in the twelfth debate review video at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
Recent Comments