What is specifically wrong with new versions? Part 3

A comparison can be made between some verses in the Authorised Version and the corresponding verses in the new versions where the full extent of the attack that has been made upon the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God is demonstrated.

The nature of the changes.
1. The Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16: 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh… AV
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion. He appeared in human form… GNB
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body… NIV

Rom 14:10,12: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. AV
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. NIV

These texts in the Authorised Version emphasis that Christ was God of very God. However, modern version change these verses thus removing the clear testimony of Scripture to the fact that Christ was God manifest in the flesh.

2. Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Micah 5:2:
… yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. AV
… But out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times. GNB

… out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times. NIV

'Ancient times' does not necessarily mean eternity past. This accommodates those who deny the eternal sonship of Christ. 

Hebrews 1:5:
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? AV

You are my Son; today I have become your Father. GNB

You are my Son, today I have become your Father. NIV

The eternal sonship of Christ is attacked here. God did not become His Father as these new versions state, He was always His Father.

3. The Virgin Birth.
Isa 7:14,
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. AV
A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'. GNB
Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name immanuel. RSV

Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. AV
The child's father and mother were amazed. GNB
The child's father and mother marvelled. NIV

There is a weakening of the evidence for the virgin birth. Joseph was not Christ's father. That is a blasphemy which undermines the whole work of redemption. If Christ was not safeguarded from original by virtue of His virgin birth then He could save no one but had his own sin to answer for.

4. The Atonement.
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. AV
By whom we are set free, that is our sins are forgiven. GNB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV

The reference to the blood of Christ which is essential to redemption is removed. The blood atonement was one particular doctrine hated by Westcott and Hort.

There are many of other places where changes like this occur. Surely this is no coincidence in the light of the fact that the revising committee set out to make doctrinal changes. They certainly accomplished their purpose.

The number of changes.
The text which the New International Version and the Good News Bible come from shows multitude of changes.

There are 481 changes which substantially affect the meaning. There are 44 changes which involve doctrine. There are 212 changes to the names of Deity, 75 changes to the name of Jesus, 44 to the name of Christ, 35 for Lord, 32 for God, 26 for other names of deity. More than 150 pronouns which refer to Deity are omitted. This cannot be incidental!

The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible.

The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.

No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them.

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 2

II. Why a raft of new translations? 

The lay person has his/her reason for new translations - the Scriptures must be made more understandable, more easily read etc. That is a false premise in itself for natural man will never understand the Scriptures by himself, no matter what versions are made available. The work of the Holy Spirit is needed.

But we need to dig a little deeper to find out the real reasons why new translations have come unto the market.

Over a period of years there were a number of new translations leading up to the A.V. 1611 and its editing of 1769. From then until the late 1800s there was no new translations. In 1881 a new Greek text was issued by Westcott and Hort and there followed what was known as the Revised Version. From then till now these new versions have multiplied. What were the real reasons for a new translation?

1. To facilitate ecumenism. At the time when the Revised Version appeared the Oxford Movement was in full flow with its Romanising tendencies. There was a clamour among ecumenists to have the Authorised Version superseded. The Revisionists by and large were in full sympathy with the Oxford Movement.

The Revised Version appeared in the form of a 'Common Bible', the first page said in large letters: AN ECUMENICAL BIBLE. The New English Bible which appeared sometime later stated in the preface that its goal was: the promotion of the ecumenical church and the oneness of the people of God in all sorts of Churches worldwide. The Authorised Version was too much a Protestant Bible and this would never do in the new ecumenical, Romanising climate that was developing.

Examples of this ecumenical facilitation is found in the way in which these new translations treat specific texts: The Good News Bible/Today's English Bible puts Peter as the rock. The New International Version has a footnote that says Peter is the rock. The New English Bible puts the word 'tradition' in 1 Cor 11:23 which gives justification for the mass.

2. A hatred of the truth. Westcott and Hort were the two main Revisioners. Hort gloried in the fact that a Unitarian had been invited unto the Committee. Had he been forced to resign when this became more widely known Westcott would have resigned with him. 

Both denied the vicarious atonement and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Hort called it 'an immoral counterfeit of the truth'. They both favoured the Larger Hope, Darwinism and O.T. Higher Criticism. Westcott said: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. Hort said: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden existed. They were on record as saying that they fully intended to bring about doctrinal changes by their revisions. Sodomites later on sat on the New International Version translation committee. 

How can men who openly opposed and ridiculed orthodox Christianity ever be trusted to compile a new translation of the Scriptures? The Scriptures ask: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job 14:4.

3. A hatred for the Authorised version. The new translation was never about updating the words. It stemmed from a hatred of the Authorised Version. In 1851 Hort called the Greek text that underlay the Authorised Version: the villainous Textus Receptus. The full quote reads: 

I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.

This was said even though he had read very little of the Greek N.T. Hort is said by other critics to have organised his entire argument to depose the received Text which underlies the Authorised Version. The man was prejudiced against this Majority Text. He believed that the most accurate texts were those discovered in the Vatican and in a monastery on Mt Sinai. These were characterised by omissions. The reason they were the oldest was because they had been set aside as corrupt. Yet Westcott & Hort relied heavily upon them.

The modern translations come mainly from the manuscripts that had been discarded. A reading which has 80-90% support from the Received/Majority Text would be discarded in favour of a reading from these corrupt manuscripts just because it came from these manuscripts. Westcott & Hort showed a distinct prejudice against the Authorised Version from the very outset. The new translation wasn't an effort to provide a faithful translation it was a prejudiced attempt to discard the Authorised Version.

Free Presbyterian Church's official response to Peter Robinson's comments

The following statement has been issued by the Moderator and Clerk on behalf of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster:

In light of recent criticism the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster wishes to publicly reaffirm its opposition to the Roman Catholic service commonly termed ‘The Mass’. In this ecumenical age, the false notion is propagated that there is little difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the simple Communion Service as practised by Protestants. However, there is a vast difference. The historic creeds of Protestant Churches underline this difference by referring to the Mass as ‘blasphemous’, ‘idolatry’ and ‘injurious to the work of Christ.’

The reason for these statements is that the Mass purports to be a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. It leads sinners to trust in the priest, the Mass, and the church rather than in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest who made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10v12). His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin.

Our objection to attendance at the Mass has nothing to do with bigotry or lack of respect for others as our critics often claim. During the funeral service of Princess Diana, the Chief Rabbi, on a point of religious principle, declined to enter the Cathedral and was praised for showing his respect by going as far as the entrance. Yet we and other Evangelical Protestants are often castigated and denigrated when, out of love and loyalty to our Saviour, we cannot countenance the ‘sacrifice of the Mass.’

Moderator: Rev Ron Johnstone

Clerk: Rev Ian Brown


Update
Rev Thomas Martin, minister of Lisburn FPC, has also made some comments about this matter calling on Peter Robinson to reconsider his statement, as reported in the Newsletter, see here

Update [Friday 25th Feb]
The Newsletter have carried a report on the statement which the Officers of Presbytery released, see here

Someone else sees the folly of Peter Robinson's position

The news media are carrying the story that Peter Robinson has let it be known that he would attend a Roman Catholic mass.
To read more see Newsletter & Belfast Telegraph

Mr Wallace Thompson, a DUP member and former adviser to Nigel Dodds, on behalf of the Evangelical Protestant Society, released a statement which is on their website

NO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT SHOULD EVER ATTEND THE POPISH MASS 

The Evangelical Protestant Society fully respects the principles of civil and religious liberty, but our long-standing position as a Society is that no evangelical Protestant should attend the Roman Catholic mass under any circumstances.  We hold to the mainstream historical view as summarised by, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

It will therefore come as no surprise that the Evangelical Protestant Society does not share the First Minister's position on this matter. 

We note that the First Minister has stressed that his decision is a personal one and that others of his colleagues might have a different view.  In light of this, we would therefore hope that no attempts will now be made by the usual suspects to demonise or persecute those evangelical Protestants who come to conclusions contrary to those of Mr Robinson.

21 February 2011

At least someone else sees the folly of this 'new politics'. It may please the Romanists and the ecumenists in society but it will not please God. Peter Robinson's new views and the historic Protestant position can't both be right. One or the other must be wrong and it is not the historic Protestant position. 

The 'Rubicon' was crossed in 2006 when Peter Robinson and others thought it all right to share power with those whose trade has been murder and mayhem in this Province for 40 years. With that sacrifice of principle the floodgates have opened. It will be one issue after another where historic Protestant Biblical positions are jettisoned. What will it be next: abortion, Sunday opening?

It is mere semantics for Peter Robinson to say that 'I wouldn’t be going as an act of worship, I would be going as an act of respect for the individual'. He may well indeed be paying his respects but he is also attending an act of worship. Every Roman Catholic funeral is a mass. The 39 articles of the Church of Ireland rightly state that the mass is 'a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit'. No right thinking, God honouring, Bible believer would want to presence themselves where such a blasphemy was being enacted. 

This blasphemy is directed at Jesus Christ. The mass claims to be a reenactment of Calvary which the Bible teaches was a finished work needing no repetition. To attend the mass is therefore no insignificant matter. The honour of Jesus Christ and His finished work is at stake. 

It seems political calculation is more important than Bible principle!

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 1

This year marks the 400th anniversary of the completion and publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible. This mammoth task was commenced in 1603 and completed in 1611.

Nowadays in virtually every Christian Bookshop you enter you are meet with an array of versions of the Bible. There are a plethora of modern translations which have in the last century flooded unto the market. In most shops there is the Authorised [King James] Version, the New International Version, the Good News Bible, the New English Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the American Standard Version etc.

These new versions are supposedly produced with the professed intention of making the Scriptures more up to date and more modern. There are arguments about words and phrases and terminology. One claim the supporters of these modern translations make is that they are supposed to make the Scriptures more understandable and more easily acceptable.

However the question to be asked is: does it matter which of these versions an individual chooses to buy and read? After all are they not all the same with only variations in the use of words? Will it aid and assist someone in their understanding and acceptance of the Scriptures to use these modern translations?

They are not all the same. There is a fundamental difference between the Authorised Version and these others which we have mentioned. A difference so great that it takes these other versions outside the pale of what can be called a faithful copy of the Holy Scriptures.

In the Free Presbyterian Church we use only the AV. Not only that but we oppose the use of any other version of the Scriptures in the English language. We believe that the AV. is the most faithful English translation of the original manuscripts. Why should we change that which is most faithful to the original and use something inferior.

I. The importance of this subject

This is not a matter of personal taste. The issues involved go far beyond mere personal preference. It is vitally important that we have the true Word of God from error and corruption.

It is important because of the use and purpose of the Scriptures. Because of man’s fall into sin, we has lost the ability to discern and understand the God of heaven from the natural revelation, Psalm 19:1-6.

God in His mercy purposed to redeem a people to Himself but natural revelation will never reveal to man that glorious truth of saving grace. It is only by that special revelation which God has given in His Word that will bring man to a knowledge of his need and an understanding that salvation is found in Christ alone, Psalm 19:7-14, Romans 10:17.

It is this Book which reveals Christ as the only Saviour of sinners. It reveals the work which Christ has done. It reveals the need of saving faith in Christ alone. It is the Scriptures which do this. Any corruption of these things will therefore be fatal.

It is important because of the attack that will be mounted against God’s Word. Paul indicates the reality of this in 2 Cor 2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Note what he teaches:

[1] Many will interfere with the Scriptures. 

[2] This interference will lead to the corruption of the written Word. ‘Corrupt’ = to adulterate [to water down]. 

[3] This was prevalent in Paul’s day. 

With the corruption of the Scriptures will come the corruption in the Church. We have got to realise that the Bible forewarns us of an attack upon the Scriptures. The modern form of that attack is seen in the glut of modern translations. There are the devil’s attack upon the Word of God.

To be continued

The foolishness of Romanism knows no end

Roman Catholic Church leaders are relying on the blood of late Pope John Paul II's to heal Robert Kubica and hasten his return to Formula 1 motor racing before the end of the season.

Click here to read the full story

It is utter nonsense to believe that the blood of any mere human being can help another. The blood of the last Pope or any other pope or supposed saint for that matter has no merit or efficaciousness. 

This was the nonsense that was rejected at the time of Protestant Reformation. J A Wylie's History of Protestantism is replete with details of the gimmicks Rome used in the past to deceive her people into thinking that the popes and saints could help them. 

As every individual is a sinner before God and unable to do any spiritual good of themselves they have no merit for themselves never mind have any to pass on to any one else. 

New Moderator announced

The Belfast Telegraph have announced that the next moderator of the Presbyterian Church will be Rev Ivan Patterson, minister of Newcastle Presbyterian Church, Co Down who has been nominated by 12 out of the 19 Presbyteries.

There follows a short biographical sketch of his life and achievements. One piece of information lacking is whether he preaches the gospel or not? Or will he be like the outgoing incumbent Norman Hamilton who is more at home running back from Africa to get introduced to the pope.