The Myth of the PreTrib rapture - The Underground Christian Network

The Myth of the PreTrib rapture

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6607171646

Sermon Outline:
After much research into this issue we have made this audio public, after much research we have come to the conclusion that what most ministers teach about this subject is not correct, this subject must be dealt with, please dont skip this message, lets search the Bible and see what it says about this very important topic.

The Origin Of The Pretribulational Rapture Theory - Ed F. Sanders

The Origin Of The Pretribulational Rapture Theory

Ed F. Sanders

---

1. Origins

There have been many articles, essays, and books written about the origin of the pretrib rapture teaching. The most prevalent theories among scholars are:

1. that the doctrine began within the Irviningite sect in England in the early 1800's (see article by George Ladd, article by Art Katterjohn)
2. that it originated in the Plymouth Brethren movement from the teachings of John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.
3. that it originated with a Mr. Tweedy, who passed it on to Darby and the Plymouth Bretren
4. that it originated with aberrant Catholic theologians (Jesuit priests) Ribera and Emmanuel Lucanza, see article by J.P. Eby)
5. that it originated with a Baptist minister named Morgan Edwards in 1788⁽¹⁾.
6. The doctrine started in the early church with a writer called Pseudo-Ephraim. (The author of this work is unknown (hence, 'pseudo'), its conclusions uncertain, and the date written is in question. Of all the 'theories' this is the least credible⁽²⁾).

One thing is clear from the available historical documents: Darby, called the 'father of dispensationalism', was responsible for the widespread dissemination of the new and novel pretrib doctrine beginning around 1830 through his ministry in the Plymouth Brethern movement. The doctrine soon spread to America and was widely popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible.

In my mind the final word on the origin of the pretrib teaching cannot be known with 100% certainty based on the documents available. I think that the best explanation is summarized by Timothy P. Weber (Memphis Theological Seminary) who wrote:

 “The pretribulation rapture......historians are still trying to determine how or where Darby got it. . . . Possibly, we may have to settle for Darby’s own explanation. He claimed that the doctrine virtually jumped out of the pages of Scripture once he accepted and consistently maintained the distinction between Israel and the church”.Living In The Shadow Of The Second Coming: American Premillennialism 1875-1982. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983, pp. 21-22). (Timothy P. Weber,

John Nelson Darby commenting on 2 Thess. 2:1-2 in 1850:

 "It is this passage which, twenty years ago, made me understand the rapture of the saints before -- perhaps a considerable time before -- the day of the Lord, that is, before the judgment of the living."⁽³⁾

 

So, according to Darby he held a different view until 1830 when he came to understand the pretrib rapture doctrine. Until further documentation turns up it seems then most likely that John Nelson Darby originated the pretrib teaching and was responsible for its wide distribution in the years that followed.

2. Quotes from early Plymouth Brethren: (contemporary with Darby)

Under The First Appearances of Secret Rapture Teaching, page 45 of B. W. Newton and Dr. S. P. Tregelles – Teachers of the Faith and the Future – 2nd Edition 1969, The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, London – George H. Fromow says, "Dr. S. P. Tregelles has recorded for us the origin of this teaching in his book The Hope of Christ's Coming, How is is Taught in Scripture and Why? (page 35 of the fifth edition).

"Dr. Tregelles further wrote: 'When the theory of a secret coming of Christ was first brought forward (about the year 1832), it was adopted with eagerness; it suited certain preconceived opinions, and it was accepted by some at that which harmonized contraditory thoughts, whether such thoughts, or any of them, rested on the sure warrant of God; written Word".
There follows the quotation given above by Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Fromow goes on to opine, "If the exact terms used by Dr. Tregelles are noted, allowance can be made, that suggestions of a 'secret coming' were put forth a few years earlier, some say at the first Albury conference in 1826; but the precise date does not alter the fact that it was a novel doctrine".

3. More Quotes regarding the origin of the pretrib rapture theory:

Charles C. Ryrie: a dispensational theologian writes: "The distinction between Israel and the Church leads to the belief that the Church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the tribulation (which in one major sense concerns Israel)." (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, pp. 158-160). (That seems to fit with the theory that Darby originated the teaching based on his dispensational hermeneutic. Ed.)

John Walvoord: thinks the pretrib rapture theory originated from Darby's understanding of ecclesiology: "any careful student of Darby soon discovers that he did not get his eschatological views from men, but rather from his doctrine of the church as the body of Christ, a concept no one claims was revealed supernaturally to Irving or Macdonald.  Darby's views undoubtedly were gradually formed, but they were theologically and biblically based rather than derived from Irving's pre-Pentecostal group". (Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation, p. 47.)

F. F. Bruce: well known Plymouth Brethren historian and theologian says "Where did he [Darby] get it? The reviewer’s answer would be that it was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager students of unfulfilled prophecy". (Book Review of The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin in The Evangelical Quarterly, (Vol. XLVII, No. 1).

Alexander Reese: "About 1830 a new school arose within the fold of Premillennialism that sought to overthrow what, since the Apostolic Age, have been considered by all premillennialist as established results, and to institute in their place a series of doctrines that had never been heard of before. The school I refer to is that of ‘The Brethren’ or ‘Plymouth Brethren,’ founded by J. N. Darby.” (Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, page 18)

Harry Ironside⁽⁴⁾:  In 1908 Ironside claimed Darby had rediscovered the apostolic teaching lost to the church: “Until brought to the fore through the writings and preaching and teaching of a distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through a period of sixteen hundred years”. (Harry Ironside, The Mysteries Of God, 1908).

Robert Cameron: “Now, be it remembered, that prior to that date, no hint of any approach to such belief can be found in any Christian literature from Polycarp down.... Surely, a doctrine that finds no exponent or advocate in the whole history and literature of Christendom, for eighteen hundred years after the founding of the Church - a doctrine that was never taught by a Father or Doctor of the Church in the past - that has no standard Commentator or Professor of the Greek language in any Theological School until the middle of the Nineteenth century, to give it approval, and that is without a friend, even to mention its name amongst the orthodox teachers or the heretical sects of Christendom - such a fatherless and motherless doctrine, when it rises to the front, demanding universal acceptance, ought to undergo careful scrutiny before it is admitted and tabulated as part of ‘the faith once for all delivered unto the saints.” (Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth About The Lord’s Return, page 72-73).

E. R. Sandeen: "Darby introduced into discussion at Powerscourt (1833) the ideas of a secret rapture of the church and of a parenthesis in prophetic fulfillment between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel. These two concepts constituted the basic tenets of the system of theology since referred to as dispensationalism" (E.R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism 1800-1930, University of Chicago Press, 1970)

A. W. Tozer: “Here is a doctrine that was not known or taught until the beginning of this century and it is already causing splits in churches.”

Philip Mauro: "The entire system of ‘dispensational teaching’ is modernistic in the strictest sense; for it first came into existence within the memory of persons now living; and was altogether unknown even in their younger days; It is more recent than Darwinism.”“A system of doctrine that contradicts what has been held and taught by every Christian expositor and every minister of Christ from the very beginning of the Christian era—suddenly made its appearance in the later part of the nineteenth century".”

Edmund Shackleton: All who held the premillennial Coming of Christ were, till about sixty years ago, of one mind on the subject. About that time a new view was promulgated that the Coming of Christ was not one event, but that it was divided into stages, in fact, that Christ comes twice from heaven to earth, but the first time only as far as the air. This first descent, it is said, will be for the purpose of removing the Church from the world, and will occur before the Great Tribulation under Antichrist. This they call "The coming for His saints" or "Secret Rapture." The second part of the Coming is said to take place when Christ appears in glory and destroys the Antichrist. This they call "The coming with His saints."

Apart from the test of the Word, which is the only final one, there are certain reasons why this doctrine should be viewed with suspicion. It appears to be little more than sixty years old; and it seems highly improbable that if scriptural it could have escaped the scrutiny of the many devoted Bible students whose writings have been preserved to us from the past. More especially in the writings of the early Christian fathers would we expect to find some notice of this doctrine, if it had been taught by the Apostles; but those who have their works declare that they betray no knowledge of a theory that the Church would escape the Tribulation under Antichrist, or that there would be any "coming" except that spoken of in Matthew 24, as occurring in manifest glory "after the Tribulation." This is all the more significant, because these writers bestowed much attention upon the subject of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation. Augustine, referring to Daniel 7, wrote: "But he who reads this passage even half asleep cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church." (Edmund Shackleton, Will the Church Escape the Great Tribulation?  pp. 31, 32, cited by Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, p. 231.)

4. Implications!

Sometimes overlooked are the implications of the pretrib rapture recent origins. In my book Outline Studies On The Rapture Question (1973) I wrote "Search the pages of Church history and literature, and you will not find one mention of the Lord coming before the Tribulation until after 1800. No one has ever cited any literature, writings, or quotes to the contrary! The implications of this truth are serious. If the Pre-Tribulation doctrine were true, it would mean that it was hidden from the church for 19 centuries. Not one of the brilliant theologians or Bible teachers before the 1800's were able to find a Pretrib rapture and coming of the Lord on the pages of Holy Scripture---an incredulous improbability to say the least!".⁽⁵⁾

---

(1). Some scholars like John L. Bray promote the theory that the pretrib teaching originated with a Baptist minister named Morgan Edwards in 1788. A close analysis of his writing Millennium, Last-Novelities clearly does not outline end-time events as found in the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, etc. See the analysis by Tim Warner in his article on Morgan Edwards.

(2) For more information on the pre-Darby pretrib theories see my friend Dave MacPherson's article Deceiving And Being Deceived.

(3) Cited by Wm Kelly in The Rapture of the Saints: Who Suggested It, Or Rather On What Scripture? The Bible Treasury, New Series, vol. 4, p. 314-318.

(4) Harry Ironside (1876-1951) was an ardent pretrib dispensationalist, prolific writer, and former pastor of Moody Memorial Church. 


(5) This was written in 1973 before the various claims of a pre-Darby pretrib rapture were widely known. But even if Morgan Edwards or one of the Jesuit priests taught the pretrib rapture theory before 1800 it would mean that the doctrine was hidden from the Church for more than 1600+ years!

Updated 5-10-2006

Post Tribulation Rapture - Undeniable Proof Exposed Using Pre-Trib Cornerstone Scripture!!

Post Tribulation Rapture - The Belief of the Early Church

Post Tribulation Rapture - Not Appointed to God's Wrath

Post Tribulation Rapture - Who is the Restrainer?

Post Tribulation Rapture - Imminence Doctrine Exposed

Post Tribulation Rapture - Marriage of the Lamb

Post Tribulation Rapture - Disproving Pre-trib in 3 Steps!

Post Tribulation Rapture - Who will Populate The Millennium?

Post Tribulation Rapture

ANALYZING THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY’S ARCTICLE OF FAITH ON THE BIBLE

ANALYZING THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY’S ARCTICLE OF FAITH ON THE BIBLE

II.  ARTICLES OF FAITH

Acknowledging the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, plenarily and verbally inspired Word of God, among other equally Biblical truths, we believe and maintain the following: (…)

Note the use of the word “be” (present tense) in the statement above. This implies that “the Bible” (as described in the terms following the word “be”) is available to people today in its inerrant, infallible, plenarily and verbally inspired form. Yet DBS never says exactly WHERE this “Bible” can be obtained. If said “Bible” that is the inerrant, infallible, plenarily and verbally inspired Word of God “be” in existence today, WHERE can one obtain it?

A. THE BIBLE

We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to Revelation) in the original languages, [to be ethical, DBS should say “only in the original languages”] and in their consequent infallibility and inerrancy [in the original languages only, as far as DBS is concerned] in all matters of which they speak (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). [Here the present tense implications of the word “consequent” indicate that these books in their plenarily, verbally, Divinely inspired form are available to people today, at least in the original languages. However, DBS never says exactly WHERE those plenarily, verbally, Divinely inspired books can be obtained and read.] The books known as the Apocrypha, however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. As the Bible uses it, the term "inspiration" refers to the writings, not the writers (2 Timothy 3:16-17) [to be ethical, DBS should have indicated here that said “inspiration” refers to correct copies as well, at least in the original languages, since in context, the passage referred to is NOT speaking of the original manuscripts nor the original giving of the original words]; the writers are spoken of as being "holy men of God" who were "moved," "carried" or "borne" along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) in such a definite way that their writings were [Note the past tense of the word, “were”, here, implying that such supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from error, infallible and inerrant writings are not, or may not be available to anyone today. The consequence is that anyone since the original writing of the Bible books who did not have the originals, or the original words in the original languages of the original books of the Bible did not or does not have the true “words” of God.] supernaturally, plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error, infallible, and inerrant, as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.

The omniscience required to make the latter statement (“as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired”) does not exist among the members of the DBS. Furthermore, the affirmation PRESUPPOSES and ASSUMES that God COULD not and/or WOULD not do such a thing (contrary to the BIBLICAL accounts in Jeremiah that God DID do such a thing). Furthermore, the statement contradicts the usage of the word “scripture” in the scriptures.

We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament, and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament  underlying the King James Version (as found in "The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorized Version of 1611").

Here DBS implicitly admits that the published O.T. and N.T. (Scrivener’s text) received texts are NOT the exact readings of the originals (nor are they the exact readings underlying the KJB). It is said that “[they] are the closest”. [Underlining added]

We, believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts [Those three words, “true”, “faithful”, and “accurate” all either mean or imply “inerrant”. Yet DBS is apparently unwilling to use the word “inerrant” of the KJB, and perhaps some members of the executive committee believe, in fact, that there are errors in the KJB.], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version of 1611 and say "This is the WORD OF GOD!" [Ethically, and as far as integrity is concerned, if DBS members are going to say this, then they will have to admit what that same “WORD OF GOD” says about itself, i.e., it is “pure” (Psalm 119:140) and “perfect” [Psalm 19:7; James 1:25] among other terms. These words are words which at least the DBS executive committee denies are true of the KJB.] while at the same time realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture. [Thus, the priesthood of the believer who is not fluent in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek is denied. This is ultimately a violation of Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Acts 17:10-11; I Peter 2:2. The statement evidences an attitude of papalism. (Underlining added)]

We believe that all the verses [should read “words”!!] in the King James Version belong in the Old and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in the original texts, [this seems to imply that the exact readings underlying the KJB are the words of the originals] although there might be other renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to us today. [This may be a problem since DBS has resolved that no words of the KJB should be added to, subtracted from, nor changed. If in their various contexts the KJB words are the best, exact, correct, (yea preserved) words, and if the 54+ learned men were truly learned men, then how could “other renderings” be acceptable in those particular contexts?]  For an exhaustive study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, [It is assumed that by the word, “Bible”, the KJB is meant.] we urge the student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help. [The problem here is that published editions of these texts do not exactly match the words underlying the KJB. Thus “return[ing] directly to [these] text[s]” would lead a person, or could lead a person, to teach or preach something different than what the KJB says, preaches and teaches. Consequently, which is correct? Are the published editions of the T.R. texts the correct words? Or are the exact words underlying the KJB (and the KJB itself) the correct words?]

Conclusion:

The DBS statement of faith is weak and ultimately unbiblical. DBS should say just exactly WHERE “the Bible” which is inerrant, inspired, infallible, etc. can be obtained and read for the good and growth of God’s children (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4, 1 Peter 2:2).

How to Define a Word - By Gail Riplinger

How to Define a Word
By Gail Riplinger

Linguists do not define words; they simply demonstrate how they are used in various contexts. Dictionaries are therefore descriptive, not prescriptive. The unique context of a writer or a speaker identifies which 'definition' (linguists would never use the word 'definition' ) of the sometimes several definitions a word may have. Dictionaries are formed by accessing modern 'usage' data bases such as the Brown University Corpus of American English, The British National Corpus, the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, collins-birmingham University International Language database (COBUILD) or the Longman/Lancaster English Language corpus. (For a good primer on how dictionaries are made see David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, i.e. page 438). These databases give a word 'in use,' showing ten words before and ten words after. The context for Bible words is obviously the Bible itself. Such word samples of usage are not shown in normal short dictionaries, such as the modern Webster's Dictionary. Therefore dictionary users misunderstand and see what they think are 'definitions,' but are sentences derived from the word 'in use.' The multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary does show the context from which a so-called definition or example of usage can be derived. When defining 'Bible' words, the OED uses the Bible. Most people do not own all the books in the world, nor do they have access to one of the million word corpuses mentioned previously. However, Christians are in a unique position, in that they all own a Bible, the source from which all dictionaries get their definition of all Bible words. Therefore, it is not necessary for Christians to go to a dictionary to define Bible words, when they actually have the original resource dictionary-makers use themselves. (Example: If one had all of works of Plato, one would not need a dictionary to study how Plato used a word.)
For example, the unabridged OED's theological definition for "inspiration" is "the special or immediate actionSpirit of God upon the human mind of soul, said esp. of that divine influence under which the books of the Scriptures are held to have been written." The OED defines 'influence' as "the action or fact of flowing in, inflowing, inflow, influx." of the

Going back to the Bible's usage of the word "inspiration" (the context from which the OED composed its 'definition.'), note the only two usages of the word "inspiration in the Bible:

 

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable..." (2 Tim. 3:16)

 

Definition #1: The word "inspiration" is a compound word, being made up of two words, "in" and "spir." The meaning of each is obvious to any Bible reader. The word "in" is used many times in the Bible and is the simplest of all words. The phoneme "spir" will only pull up the word "Spirit" for any Bible reader. (A process called 'cognitive scaffolding' is that by which vocabulary is built to understand compound words. It erects a meaning from the constituent parts of a word.) The suffix "ation" when applied to a verb (inspire) makes a verb into a noun of action. Therefore "inspiration" describes the action of the "spirit in." Therefore, if "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," then "All scripture is given by the "spirit 'acting' in' the giving of scripture." Any elementary school child will garner this 'meaning' by simply reading the English Bible.( But 'scholars' would love to make it seem more difficult so that we would need to go to them for the real 'meaning'.)

 

Definition #2: The first usage of the word "inspiration" in the Bible is in Job 32:8. As with all first usages of words, this verse defines the word 'inspiration.'

"But there is a spirit in man: and the in-spir-ation of the Almighty giveth them understanding." (Job 32:8).

The first usage (in Job) defines "inspiration" EXACTLY as we have just defined it, as the "spirit in." Since the word "inspiration" is only used in these two places in the Bible, then it can have no other 'theological' (see OED) meaning than that which these contexts and its constituent parts ('in' and 'spir' and 'ation') give it. Job 32:8 defines "inspiration" as the "spirit in" man. It further defines it as an action by "the Almighty" which "giveth them understanding." 

Therefore the meaning of inspiration is:
1.) in-spir-ation (that is) the spirit 'acting' in (2 Tim. 3:16)
2.) "the spirit in man" (Job 32:8)
3.) "the Almighty giveth them understanding" (Job 32). These words in Job can be paralleled with "is given by inspiration of God" in Timothy: a.) the Almighty = God, b.) giveth = is given c.) understanding = scriptures.

From these biblical usages men have come up with a so-called definitions such as Webster did in 1828. He said, "inspiration" is "the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men..."

So, what is the Bible's own definition of inspiration? It is so simple that the "wise and prudent" will reject it and look to a wordy, man-made dictionary for their authority. What a word means is not what the dictionary says it means. What a word means is the meaning the word creates in the mind of the reader. That meaning comes from the pre-existing files in the brain which have been created by pre-conditioned associations with the words, letters, and sounds in a word. Since the Bible was the only book that men had for millenia, the pre-existing 'definitions' and 'meanings' came from Bible usages of words. In Genesis we begin with, "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." The phoneme 'spir' echoes throughout the Bible as only the 'spirit.' The word 'in' is pre-defined by hundreds upon hundreds of Bible usages. By the time a Bible reader gets to 2 Tim. 3:16, the phonemes 'in' and 'spir' could have no other 'meaning to them than the 'spirit' being or acting 'in' something.

The Spirit of God, in the believing KJB translators, ("the spirit in man" Job) , as in all born again believers led them into all truth.The words he led them to use therefore are inspired words, that is, words that are the product of being given by the Spirit of God.Jesus said, 'the words that I speak unto they are spirit..'

The Bible Must be Vernacular - by James H. Sightler, M.D.

The Bible Must be Vernacular

Our Bible, the King James Version, is scripture and is also vernacular as it should be if we are to search the scriptures as the noble Bereans did. John 5:39 “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Acts 17:11-12 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.” God, in control of everything in this old world, oversaw the development of the English language and made it possible for it to receive easily in translation the Hebrew influenced Koine Greek of the New Testament. Man did not evolve and language has not either. In the providence of God English is more efficient and compact and expressive than any other language. In its day the Koine Greek was a world language, but now that world language is English and Koine Greek is spoken nowhere. Still there are vernacular translations in other languages, French, German, Italian, and Spanish which conform very closely to the King James Version.

We can therefore be concerned with the smallest elements of language as it is conveyed by the Bible, with the alphabet itself and simple phonemes. These are used in the Bible as in no other book. The very smallest of these elements, letters, vowels, consonants, and syllables, were given to us by God. The nature of the letters and syllables and their arrangement into sequences are crucial to making the meaning of words and passages intelligible to us, so that they stand alone without need of lexicon or commentary.

There is an important word which applies to these small elements of language and to their combination into understandable syllables and words. That word is prosody. The dictionary definition is "the art of versification and the study of metrical (rhythmic) structure, rhyme, and stanza forms." The word is from the Middle English, prosodie, and, before that, from an ancient Greek word, prosodi, which means song sung to music and has the connotation of accent. Remember that the entire Old Testament, given in Hebrew in metrical form, was meant to be sung, and that the notation of the singing is specified in the accents embedded in the Hebrew text. The versification of the Old Testament is also embedded in the text. God intended His words to be given to us in a poetic and musical form. Why?

Ordinary prose writing, the dull voice of man's wisdom, cannot match the richness of speech that we find in preaching or the beauty of poetry and cannot duplicate their effect on our hearts. A speaker can communicate meaning and message by stress, pitch, meter, and pauses, melodic speech if you will. Therefore, in order to achieve, in writing, the richness and full meaning of speech, prosody and meter, which are poetic, must be made intrinsic to the writing. That kind of writing, because it is memorable and naturally suited to our minds, has the power to stabilize and preserve language. The greatest richness, beauty, poetry, and power in all literature is given to us in the inspired King James Bible and only in that singular revelation.

An infant hears its mother speak while it is still in the womb. Its rearing begins before it is placed in its mother's arms. By at least one month of age the child can recognize the voice of its own mother as different from that of other women. The effortless and natural building of language by infants is made possible by a vocal scaffold. That scaffold is the universal sing-song "baby talk" or "motherese" by which mothers, the world over, with biblical natural affection, speak to their infants. Motherese is characterized by a high pitched voice, trochaic rhythm with accent on the first of two syllables, and an increase in duration of the first syllable. Mothers "speak comfortably unto" their children, in a "soft answer," and in so doing give them peace and rest. They give them "vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope." Fathers also do this in a different and more authoritative, but still important, way. Both father and mother are required for successful teaching and rearing of infants.

Prosody in the speech of the mother and father gives cues to the infant which it can recognize and retain, certainly before the age of 9 months. Prosodic cues enable the infant to organize and encode what is heard, and they serve as a basis for later acquisition of syntax, that is, the arrangement of words into phrases and sentences. Upon these prosodic "pegs" are later "hung" the syntax that the infant naturally acquires and the meanings of words and their proper placement in sequence in a phrase or sentence.

God made us, alone among all His creatures, with minds and vocal anatomy meant for language. It develops naturally and without formal teaching. At a very early time, before the age of two years, a child can combine words into meaningful phrases and sentences which are not simply copied but are used properly to express things the child has not heard before.

But even though we grow to maturity and may think ourselves free from needing the simple comforts of prosody and poetry, we still must have them, as much as children and as long as life lasts. We who think ourselves wise must become as little children and be spoken comfortably unto; we also need vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope; we need the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort to heal the brokenhearted.

In a new book, In Awe of Thy Word, Dr. Gail Riplinger ingeniously, with both text and graphics, illustrates many examples of the precise and metrical combination of syllables and words in the King James Bible into poetic orders which naturally capture and hold our attention and are sublime in character. She has shown with many previously unreported quotes exactly what Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Coverdale believed about the vernacular nature and inspiration of the Bible. There is a complete recounting of the true thought of Erasmus, his feelings about vernacular Bibles, and his attitude toward the Roman Church. The breadth of information supplied is truly remarkable, and we are greatly indebted to her for her work.

Greer, South Carolina
July 1, 2004
James H. Sightler, M.D.
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Class of 1968
Diplomate, American Board of Pediatrics

The King James Bible Is Inspired - by James H. Sightler, M.D.

The King James Bible Is Inspired

May we call the KJB inspired, or merely the best translation of the inspired originals and copies of them? Is it truly scripture as we read in II Timothy 3:16 or not? I believe the KJB did not lose inspiration in translation. Few pastors are unwise enough to stand in the pulpit and say that Bible in the hands of the congregation is a good translation but somehow not equal to the manuscripts. But there are fundamental "academic" defenders of the Textus Receptus who boldly say that very thing.

Elizabethan English of the KJB is more precise than any legal document, more beautiful than any other literature, and more easily memorized than any other translation. H. L. Mencken, the agnostic Baltimore Sun reporter who covered the Scopes trial, said of the KJB: "many learned but misguided men have sought to produce translations that should be…in the plain speech of everyday. But the Authorized Version has never yielded to any of them for it is palpably and overwhelmingly better than they are, just as it is better than the Greek New Testament, or the Vulgate, or the Septuagint. Its English is extraordinarily simple, pure, eloquent, lovely. It is a mine of lordly and incomparable poetry, at once the most stirring and the most touching ever heard of." If unbelievers can say that of the KJB, why is it politically incorrect among us to say the same thing?

The question is whether inspiration belongs only to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. If so the mass of believers cannot hide God's inspired words in their hearts. Is this position any better than concept inspiration or inspiration of the autographs only? It is not. The KJB translators, taught in prayer as Moses was taught eloquence by God in Exodus 4:12, rendered our Bible into an elevated, Biblical form of English, cast in a mold slowly shaped by the Biblical Greek and Hebrew as they had been carried over into other languages for centuries before English came about from them and took its best form in the 16th century.

Koine Greek of the New Testament was vernacular and also Biblical because of strong Hebrew influence. It was not the language of the streets. It was a world language in its day but is now a dead language. The best Greek scholars do not think in it nor preach or pray from the heart in it. English, now spoken by more people than any other tongue, has replaced it as a world language, and the honour given to God by the KJB is the primary reason. Bible translations in use through history in the true churches outside Catholicism have all been inspired. That our English Bible has surpassed them in beauty and soul stirring pathos is in the hands of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who gave Hebrew to Adam and guided the development of earlier tongues out of the integrity of His heart and with the skilfulness of His hands and by that same power shaped English itself to receive Hebrew and Greek expressions with divine ease and grace. God is in control of this world and did not stand aside and let languages evolve naturalistically without direction.

Some Things We Know

ONE     The Bible is eternal, has always existed and always will. Ezekiel 2:9-10, Psalms 119:89, 152, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35

TWO     Inspiration of the Bible is by direct dictation from God. Numbers 12:8, Isaiah 51:16, Ezekiel 2:1-2 and 3:1-3, John 17:8

THREE     Inspiration and writing, or scripture, are specifically connected in II Timothy 3:16 and I Peter 1:17-21.

FOUR     The Bible, always vernacular, is alive; it is the lively oracles which Stephen preached as given to the Jews. It lives in the hearts of believers, hidden there by the Holy Ghost who has provided spiritual understanding and tbe means by which we can call it to memory. John 6:63 says that the words of Jesus, the living bread, are spirit and life.

FIVE     God sent Jesus to spend his youth in Galilee of the nations where he was protected from Herod. God ordained that Jesus' ministry would flourish there. This follows Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-8, fulfilled in Matthew 4:12-16. All the disciples except Judas were Galileans. Believers were scattered there after Stephen's stoning; churches were established there at an early time. The Lord's ministry in that land of many languages foreshadows the very early translation of the Bible.

SIX     The priesthood of the believer, taught in I Peter 2:5, 9 and Revelation 1:6, requires vernacular translation as we see in I Corinthians 14:13-16, I will pray with the understanding, I will sing with the understanding also.

SEVEN     Translation has always been the means of preservation of the scriptures. The Bible has been translated, published in written form, and preached since Acts 2:4-18 (16 languages here), I Corinthians 14:5-22, Colossians 1:5-6 and 22, Romans 10:17, and Romans 16:26. Portions of Daniel are Aramaic. A number of verses in the KJB, I John 5:7, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 20:28, and Matthew 27:35 depend primarily on Old Latin manuscripts, although they are in a small minority of Greek manuscripts.

EIGHT     Man did not evolve; language did not evolve. God gave Hebrew to Adam. There is a single New Testament reference which I believe confirms the belief that Hebrew was the original language and is the language of God. In Acts 26:14 Paul told Agrippa "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? In the providence of God Hebrew expressions somehow flow naturally into English. Hebrew idioms became English idioms because the KJB translators so faithfully respected and followed Hebrew word order. "It came to pass," "a man after his own heart," "as a lamb to the slaughter," "the salt of the earth," "thorn in the flesh," and "gave up the ghost" are some of many examples that have enriched our language.
 

NINE     England provided a place of refuge for thousands of Spanish Jews and Christians who had to flee from the Inquisition. The English remembered God's promise to Abraham, "I will bless them that bless thee," and gained a world empire as Spain lost one. The vernacular nature of the Bible, the priesthood of the believer, preservation by translation and useage, respectful and exact faithfulness of the KJB translators to Hebrew and Greek, and humble faith on our part, all point toward inspiration of the KJB itself.

James H. Sightler, M.D.
Sightler Publications
September 1, 2002

Inspiration

 
Anytime we use a dictionary, we must pick the correct definition for the context of what we are doing.
Example: save
noun: (sports) the act of preventing the opposition from scoring ("The goalie made a brilliant save")
verb: to keep up and reserve for personal or special use ("She saved the old family photographs in a drawer")
verb: feather one's nest; have a nest egg ("He saves half his salary")
verb: spend less; buy at a reduced price
verb: spend sparingly, avoid the waste of ("This move will save money")
verb: bring into safety
verb: make unnecessary an expenditure or effort ("This will save money")
verb: refrain from harming
verb: save from sins
verb: retain rights to
verb: save from ruin, destruction, or harm
name: A surname
The Biblical definition would be to save from sins.
What would be the Biblical definition for inspiration?
 
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
 
inspiration
INSPIRA'TION, n. [L. inspiro.]

1. The act of drawing air into the lungs; the inhaling of air; a branch of respiration, and opposed to expiration.
2. The act of breathing into any thing.
3. The infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.
4. The infusion of ideas or directions by the supposed deities of pagans.
5. The infusion or communication of ideas or poetic spirit, by a superior being or supposed presiding power; as the inspiration of Homer or other poet.

Breathe is not a Biblical definition, but a secular one. Because of choosing the wrong definition, there is now much heresy. All we had to do is look at the Bible.
 
2 Peter 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
God did speak audibly to prophets and the writers of scripture, but not every time. According to this verse who spoke? holy men of God.
 
How did they speak? As they were moved of the Holy Ghost
Inspiration is the Spirit of God moving on a person. It is not God speaking in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic so that only those words would ever be inspired or preserved. 

…A big heresy because some people used the wrong definition.
In English class, I remember being taught to look at the root word to help with the definition, and then I would ask myself what would that be? 

Inspiration – take away the suffix and prefix and you have what? Spir – Inspiration is by the Spirit 

You don’t need to use the Greek word, but if you do, here is what you find. 

The Greek word there is never translated in the Bible breathe – never! 

Never in the King James Bible – it is in the NIV. 

It is almost always translated as “spirit” (322 times), “Ghost” or “ghost” (91 times), “wind” (1 time), “life” (1 time), but never as “breath” or “breathed.” 

http://www.hacalumni.com/inspiration.shtml 

Traitors, Heady, Highminded: D.A. Waite Denies KJB Inspiration - by Gail Riplinger

Traitors, Heady, Highminded: D.A. Waite Denies KJB Inspiration - by Gail Riplinger

 

“TRAITORS, HEADY, HIGHMINDED

…from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:4) by G.A. Riplinger

D.A. WAITE denies the inspiration of our Holy Bible, makes his Dean Burgon Society members sign a document stating that they will never refer to our English Holy Bible as 'inspired.' In his most recent 'talk,' he states that our King James Bible should not be called "pure," nor should it be called "perfect." He promotes a new book which denies “Perfection of Translation.” He writes to others, chiding good men who believe in inspiration, specifically Dr.Mickey Carter, Dr. Jeff Fugate, and Gail Riplinger. The Bible warns of men who have "crept in unawares." Judas was able to betray our Saviour, because he was one of the disciples.

WAS he motivated to deny our Holy Bible’s inspiration by his association with the revision of the KJB, called The Easy Reading KJB, which his son, who created The Defined King James Bible, worked on? Do the definitions in his son’s Defined King James Bible sometimes match the heresy and error in new versions? Were these errors caused, in part, by his son’s use of secularized modern English Dictionaries and the corrupt lexicons of Thayer, Brown, Driver, and Briggs? This e-book on CD-ROM answers all of these questions and more.

D.A. WAITE's denial of the inspiration of our King James Bible no doubt stems from his years of using corrupt lexicons, and particularly from his blind adherence to the Trinitarian Bible Society's slightly tainted Scrivener Greek New Testament and Ginsburg Old Testament, which he sells (See the N.T. preface and the O.T. preface a few pages from the end). When viewed through such specked glasses, it is no wonder his Holy Bible looks less than inspired.

Waite’s ‘Bible For Today’ newsletter (BFT Update) has begun an attack on those who believe their Holy Bible is inspired. Because a scriptural dissertation, proving our Bible is not inspired, cannot be written, he has resorted to childish harassment and malicious personal accusations. Because Hazardous Materials so soundly proved that, in the minutae, their Scrivener/Ginsburg Greek and Hebrew editions, are faulty, he has scrambled rabidly, grasping any straw to keep people from reading the new book.

The "falling away" is in full swing.

60 page-book in PDF format

http://www.hacalumni.com/pdfs/Waite.pdf

OUR STATEMENT OF FAITH ON THE KING JAMES BIBLE "We believe that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16) and that "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5). We believe that the 66 books (Old Testament and New Testament) of our English scriptures, which is the King James Bible (1611), were given under the direct supervision and supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore constitute the perfect, preserved and inspired words of God without any admixture of error (Ps. 12:6,7; Ps. 19:7). We do not subscribe to the heresy that only the "original manuscripts" are inspired and preserved. This Holy Bible is our sole authority for truth for all Christian belief and practice."

http://www.hacalumni.com/

The New King James Bible: Counterfeit - by Terry Watkins

by Terry Watkins  http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html 

coun ter feit \'kaunt-er-fit\: to imitate or copy closely especially with intent to deceive.

The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit. And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan. The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan's counterfeit: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . ." Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan's ultimate counterfeit: ". . . I will BE LIKE the most High." And among his greatest counterfeit's is the New King James Bible (NKJV). Christians that would never touch a New International Version (NIV), New American Standard (NASV), Revised Standard (RSV), the New Revised Standard (NRSV) or other per-versions are being "seduced" by the subtil NKJV. And though the New King James does indeed bear a "likeness" to the 1611 King James Bible, as you'll soon see, there's something else coiled (see Genesis 3:1) "underneath the cover" of the NKJV. WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK? Symbols are used throughout the occult. Harpers' Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (p.594) says, "Symbols are important to all esoteric teachings, for they contain secret wisdom accessible only to the initiated." Many people have asked about the mysterious symbol on the NKJV. Thomas Nelson Publishers (publishers of the NKJV) claim, on the inside-cover, the symbol, ". . .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity." But Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device." And why does The Aquarian Conspiracy, a key New Age "handbook", bear a similar symbol? New Agers freely admit it represents three inter-woven "6"s or "666". Constance Cumbey, author of The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow and a notable authority on the New Age Movement, said, "On the cover of the Aquarian Conspiracy is a Mobius, it is really used by them as triple six (666). The emblem on the cover of the New King James Bible is said to be an ancient symbol of the Trinity. The old symbol had gnostic origins. It was more gnostic than Christian. I was rather alarmed when I noticed the emblem..." (The New Age Movement, Southwest Radio Church, 1982 p.11) The three esoteric "6"'s separated. Plainly displaying the interlocked "666". The Triqueta is used as the centerpiece for the logo for The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (ITP). The ITP is a new age school following the Jungian Psychology [occultist Carl Jung]. One of their stated goals is ". . . to reach the recognition of divinity within"(www.itp.edu/about/tp.html) (see Genesis 3:5, "...ye shall be as gods...") The same symbol (with a circle) is displayed by the rock group Led Zeppelin. Members of Led Zeppelin are deeply involved in satanism and the occult. Guitarist Jimmy Page, so consumed with satanism, actually purchased satanist Aleister Crowley's mansion. Most believe the symbol is from the teachings of Aleister Crowley and represents 666. The following picture is "The Hierophant" taken from the Tarot card set designed by satanist Aliester Crowley. The "Hierophant" is a priest in the occult and Eleusinian. Notice the "three circles" at the top of the wand or rod in the Hierphant's hand. Inside the the three intertwined circles is the "NKJV symbol". To the right is the top of the wand enlarged. Notice the "NKJV symbol" (upside down) inside the three circles. One of the most occultic television shows ever aired is "Charmed". "Charmed" details the spells and occultic practices of three witches. The "NKJV symbol" is the show's primary symbol of witchcraft and is splattered throughout the series. Notice the "NKJV symbol" displayed on "The Book of Shadows". The Book of Shadows is commonly used in withcraft and satanism: Book of Shadows: Also called a grimoire, this journal kept either by individual witches or satanists or by a coven or group, records the activities of the group and the incantations used. (Jerry Johnston, The Edge of Evil: The Rise of Satanism on North America, p. 269) THE NKJV & WITCHCRAFT? The Craft: A Witch's Book of Shadows The Witch's Book of Shadows or Grimoire is a book of spells, enchantments, and rituals. Includes Rituals, Spells, and Wicca Ethics The Craft Companion: A Witch's Journal By Dorothy Morrison, a high priest of Witchcraft. NOTE: We circled (in YELLOW and RED), and also enlarged to the side The NKJV symbol. Here's some examples of Satanic and Pagan Jewelry which includes the NKJV logo. LEFT BOX: Notice the satanic pentagram ring in the top right corner. The ring with the NKJV logo is the fourth down on the left, we highlighted it with a yellow circle. BOTTOM BOX: Notice the very satanic Baphomet Goat. We broke out and colored the NKJV symbol found in the other two satanic pieces of jewelry. LEFT: The image on the left is from the rock group Deicide's album "Once Upon the Cross". It is a triquetra (the NKJV logo) with pentagrams and upside down crosses. The group Deicide members are very serious Satanists. Lead Singer Glen Benton has an upside down cross branded on his forehead. The inside cover of the album "Once Upon the Cross" has the Lord Jesus Christ, sliced up the middle, with his insides removed. The name Deicide means the death of God. RIGHT: The triquetra (the NKJV logo) is also the logo for the Rap / Metal band P.O.D. The book "Blood on the Doorposts" by former Satanists, Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, also documents the "trio of sixes (666)" in the "NKJV symbol" and goes so far as claim it is "symbolic of the anti-christ": "A disguised interlocked trio of sixes, symbolic of the anti-christ. Also symbolizes the triple goddess of Wicca (three interlocked vesica pisces together). Commonly used in Catholic liturgical iconography, and has recently found its way into the logo of the New King James Bible." (Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, Blood on the Doorposts, p. 150) Dr. Cathy Burns writes in her book, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, concerning the "NKJV symbol": "Marilyn Ferguson, a New Ager, used the symbol of the triquetra (another name for the triskele) on her book The Aquarian Conspiracy. This is a variation for the number 666. Other books and material have a similar design printed on them, such as books from David Spangler, the person who lauds Lucifer, and The Witch's Grimoire. As most people know, the number 666 is the number of the beast (see Revelation 13:18) and is evil, yet the occultists and New Agers love this number and consider it to be sacred. As stated earlier, many organizations, such as the World Future Society and the Trilateral Commission, incorporate this symbol into their logo. I think it is quite interesting to see that this same symbol appears on the cover of the New King James Bible as well!"(Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pp. 242-243) For more info on the NKJV "mark" Would God "mark" His word with a symbol in the occult? The Preface to the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "A special feature of the New King James Version is ITS CONFORMITY to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. . . the new edition, while much clearer ARE SO CLOSE to the traditional. . ." Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century! So why are they there? The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate! By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God! The NKJV claims to make the "old" KJV "much clearer" by "updating obsolete words" (New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235) How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification! Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"? Matthew 16:18 KJV: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." NKJV: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Luke 16:23 KJV: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." NKJV: "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14. Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much clearer" by changing "grave" to "Hades"! ". . . O Hades, where is your victory?" Clear as mud. . . Another one of those "obsolete words" is "repent". They take it out 44 times! And how does the NKJV make it "much clearer"? In Matthew 21:32 they use "relent". Matthew 27:3 it's "remorseful" Or Romans 11:29 they change "repentance" to "irrevocable". The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (see Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word! The word "damned", "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "damned"! Damned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "damned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "damn": "to condemn to hell". The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157) defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ." In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible! That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! That's what they did! One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another." In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21. The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One." And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! ( ditto NIV, NASV) And if you think the NKJV just "innocently" updated the "obsolete words", removed the "thee's and thou's" - here's what the translators proudly admit: "IT IS CLEAR that this revision REQUIRED more than the dropping of "-eth" endings, removing, "thee's" and "thou's," and updating obsolete words." (The New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235) AND THEY AIN'T JUST A KIDDIN'! Here's a sampling of the required changes: Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM" Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV! Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word! Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV). Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction! Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale! Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV) John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV) Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV) Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV) 1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV? 1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV) 1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV) 1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV) 2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) 2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV) 2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV) 2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV) Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV) 1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV) 1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! 1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV! 1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV) Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV) 2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) 1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) 1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security! Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) AND THAT DOESN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES! The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times! The NKJV removes the word God 51 times! The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times! In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV! The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes! And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV! And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer." The New King James is a COUNTERFEIT! It's NOT NEW! The changes are already in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, or RSV! And it's certainly NOT true to the 1611 King James Bible! Friend, I want to ask you the most important question anyone will ever ask you: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SAVED? It's simple to be saved ... Know you're a sinner. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10 "... for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 That Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your sins. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, ..." 1 Peter 2:24 "... Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"Revelation 1:5 And the best way you know how, simply trust Him, and Him alone as your personal Savior. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE SAVED? Pray this prayer, and mean it with all your heart. Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner, and unless you save me I am lost forever. I thank you for dying for me at Calvary. I come to you now, Lord the best way I know how, and ask you to save me. I now receive you as my Savior. In Jesus Christ Name, Amen.