Category: Bible

King James VI & I

King James VI & I

Biography
James Charles Stuart

King James VI or Scottland, Ireland and King Jmaes I of England

James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625), the only child of Mary, Queen of Scots, was King of Scots from 1567 and King of England and Ireland from 1603, being the first monarch of the House of Stuart to rule all three countries.  His descendants include Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Philippe of Belgium, Felipe VI of Spain, Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, Margrethe II of Denmark, Harald V of Norway, Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, and Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg. This article deals with numerous descendants of James and his wife Anne of Denmark (Since he is not known to have had any illegitimate children).

James VI and I was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625.

Born: June 19, 1566, Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Died: March 27, 1625, Theobalds House, Goffs Oak, United Kingdom

Spouse: Anne of Denmark (m. 1589–1619)

Mother: Mary, Queen of Scots

Father: Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley

Children: Charles I of England, Elizabeth of Bohemia, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales
Spouse: Anne of Denmark (m. 1589–1619)
Spouse: Anne of Denmark (m. 1589–1619)
Edinburgh Castle
  Edinburgh Castle

In August 1589, James married Anne of Denmark by proxy and their actual wedding ceremony took place in Oslo, Norway, on 23 November of that year. Although James and Anne were close at the beginning of their marriage, they gradually drifted apart. She had been brought up a Lutheran and converted to Catholicism shortly after marrying James, which was unpopular among the people of Presbyterian Scotland (and, later, those of Anglican England).

By the time of her husband’s accession to the English throne in 1603, Anne was the mother of three living children (Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, Elizabeth and Charles), but had also suffered at least three miscarriages and stillbirths, and had another four children who died in infancy. Their second son succeeded James as King Charles I.

Children

Name Portrait Birth Marriages and Issue Death
Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales Henry Prince of Wales 1610 Robert Peake.jpg 19 February 1594
Stirling Castle, Stirling Scotland
Never married
no children
6 November 1612 (aged 18)
Elizabeth of Bohemia Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia from NPG.jpg 19 August 1596
Falkland Palace, Fife, Scotland
Frederick of Bohemia
8 children. The current UK monarchy stems from her
13 February 1662 (aged 65)
Charles I of England Charles I (young).jpg 19 November 1600
Dunfermline Palace, Fife, Scotland
Henrietta Maria of France
5 children
30 January 1649 (aged 48)

 

  1. Henry Frederick STUART, Prince of Wales
    Birth 19 FEB 1594, Stirling Castle; Death 6 NOV 1612, St. James Palace, England. Notes: Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester. Died of Typhoid.
  2. STUART, Child
    Birth JUL 1595; Death JUL 1595–Stillborn
  3. Elizabeth STUART, “The Winter Queen”, Queen of Bohemia
    Birth 19 AUG 1596, Dunfermline; Death 13 FEB 1662, Leicester House, London, England. Notes: Married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine of the Rhine, King of Bohemia 1619-1620. Had 13 children.
  4. Margaret STUART
    Birth 24 DEC 1598, Dalkeith Palace; Death MAR 1600, Linlithgow
  5. Charles I STUART, King of Britain
    Birth 19 NOV 1600, Dunfermline, Scotland; Death 30 JAN 1649, Whitehall Palace, England; Burial , St. George’s, Chapel, Windsor, England. Notes: Acceded to English throne upon death of his father on March 27, 1625. Murdered by order of “Puritan” Oliver Cromwell and other insurgents. Trial of King Charles I ||| Last words ||| more links to information on Charles I on the King James VI & I index page.
  6. Robert Bruce STUART, Duke of Kintyre
    Birth 18 JAN 1602, Dunfermline; Death 27 MAY 1602, Dunfermline
  7. Son
    Birth MAY 1603, Stirling; Death MAY 1603, Stirling
  8. Mary STUART
    Birth 8 APR 1605, Greenwich Palace; Death 16 SEP 1607, Stanwell Park, Middlesex, England
  9. Sophia STUART
    Birth 22 JUN 1606, Greenwich Palace; Death 23 JUN 1606, Greenwich Palace
*King James VI & I is not known to have had any illegitimate children.

Geneaology from King James I
to Prince Charles and Princess Diana

(and subsequent descendants)

The following genealogical chart is used with kind permission from Yvonne Demoskoff (http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/royalty.html). Thanks Yvonne! One can also see this page as a pdf at kjchart.pdf


This chart outlines the descent of the late Princess Diana and Prince Charles from their common ancestor, King James VI & I. The names in red are five of the six godparents of their son Prince William. Please note that some information (such as full names and titles, in some cases) has been omitted for the sake of space.

(Copyright © 1998 Yvonne Demoskoff)

JAMES I of England and VI of Scotland (1566-1625) | |————————————————————————————————————————| | | Elizabeth Charles I, King of England | | | | Sophia James II, King of England | | | | George I, King of Great Britain (natural daughter:) | Henrietta | | George II, King of Great Britain James, 1st Earl Waldegrave | | |———————————————————————–| |———————| Frederick, Prince of Wales Louisa 2nd Earl Waldegrave 3rd Earl Waldegrave | | | | |———————| | | | | | | | | Augusta George III, King of Great Britain Louise Anne Horatia 4th Earl Waldegrave | | | | | | | | | | Augusta Edward, Duke of Kent Louise Horace 8th Earl Waldegrave | | | | | | | | | | Paul Victoria, Queen of Great Britain Christian IX, King of Denmark Adelaide William | | | | | | |——————————–| | | | Pauline Edward VII, King of G.B. Alice George I, King of the Hellenes 6th Earl Spencer 11th Earl Waldegrave | | | | | | | | | | | | Nicholas George V, King of G.B. Victoria Constantine I, King of the Hellenes 7th Earl Spencer 12th Earl Waldegrave | | | | | | | |—————| |————| | | | Sophie George VI, George, Alice Louis, Earl Paul I, King of the Hellenes 8th Earl Spencer Lady Susan Waldegrave | King of G.B. Duke of Kent | Mountbatten | | | | | | of Burma | | | | | | | | | Anastasia Elizabeth II, Alexandra Philip, Duke Patricia Constantine II, King Lady Diana Spencer | Queen of G.B. of Edinburgh | of the Hellenes | | | | | | Georgina |——————————-| Norton | | | | | | | Natalia Charles, Prince of Wales | |————————————————————————————| | | H.R.H. Prince William of Wales

updated April 9, 2011, H.R.H. Prince William of Wales married Miss Catherine Middleton at Westminster Abbey. They became known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

July 22, 2013, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge announce the birth of their first son, [the baby was eventually named George Alexander Louis] born at the Lindo Wing, St. Mary’s Hospital, Paddington. “The baby is third in line of succession after His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales and His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge. He is styled His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge.

(derived from www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/the-duchess-of-cambridge/biography. Quote taken from www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/news-and-diary/the-duchess-of-cambridge-has-been-delivered-of-son)

May 2, 2015, the second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge was born–a daughter, HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge at St. Mary’s Hospital in London. She is fourth in line for the British throne: (1st) Prince Charles (her grandfather) (2nd) Prince William (her father) (3rd) Prince George (her older brother) (4th) Princess Charlotte.

King James I of England
(VI of Scotland)
INTERESTING FACTS

  • King James I was a Christian who wanted the Bible in the hands of the common man. Specially commanded the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611 of the Bible.
  • King James was known for his wisdom. He was known as “Great Britain’s Solomon” while he was yet alive.
  • Fluent in Greek, Latin, French, English, and his native Scots. Schooled in Italian and Spanish.
  • Wrote extensively including Basilicon Doron (the Kingly Gift), Daemonologie, and tracts on varied subjects such as “Counterblaste to Tobacco” which condemned the use of tobacco. Counterblaste is considered the first anti-smoking tract. These and many other writings are found in The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince Iames (in Jacobean typography, the letter “I” can represent I or J), a massive collection of the king’s writings now online. In The Workes, one finds that King James was a contender for the faith of Jesus Christ and cared about the spiritual well-being of his kingdom. He even wrote Christian meditations for his people. His writings are still relevant today–King James has a message that Rome does not want you to hear.
  • William Shakespere was one of his subjects. Learning and writing thrived under the King’s reign.
  • Formed the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire by uniting warring tribes of Scotland and then enjoining the crowns of Scotland and England in 1603. He was the first to call his new kingdom, “Great Britain”.
  • King James was became King of Scotland in 1567 when he was 13 months old and acceded to the English throne in 1603.
  • Scottish reformation leader John Knox read the sermon when he was crowned King.
  • He endured racism as a Scot ruling over the English, nevertheless had the love and admiration of many subjects. Years after his death, detractors tried to sully his good name. Unfortunately, it continues today, yet KJV translators, yea the King himself had predicted such.
  • King James was sickly having crippling arthritis, weak limbs, abdominal colic, gout, and a number of other chronic illnesses. He also had physical handicaps which affected his legs and tongue. Coupled with numerous attempts on his life, he required constant attention and watchcare.
  • His mother was Mary Queen of Scots who was deposed in 1567 and executed in 1587 after 19 years in prison. His father, Lord Darnley, was murdered in 1567.
  • Roman Catholic clerics tried to kill him more than once. The King was born during the time of the Reformation and well knew popery’s atrocities. In 1536, popery burned William Tyndale to death for distributing the Bible and it was MUCH displeased with King James’ authorization of a Bible in English (see translator’s notes). Roman Catholic Nicolo Molin, an Ambassador said this of King James:

    “…He is a Protestant…The king tries to extend his Protestant religion to the whole island. The King is a bitter enemy of our religion (Roman Catholic)…He frequently speaks of it in terms of contempt. He is all the harsher because of this last conspiracy (Gun Powder Plot) against his life…He understood that the Jesuits had a hand in it.”

    King James said this in Basilicon Doron:

    “I am no papist as I said before…Now faith…is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth). It must be nourished by prayer, which is no thing else but a friendly talking to God. Use oft to pray when ye are quiet, especially in your bed…”

  • He led a chaste life. Sir Henry Wotton (June 1602) said this of King James:

    “There appears a certain natural goodness verging on modesty…He wears short hair…among his good qualities none shines more brightly than the chastness of his life, which he has preserved without stain down to the present time. Contrary to the example of almost all his ancestors, who disturbed the kingdom with the great number of bastards which they left.”

    F.A. Inderwick wrote in 1891:

    “James had a reputation for learning, for piety, for good nature, and for liberality.”

    In 1603, Sir Roger Wilbaham wrote:

    “The King is of sharpest wit and invention…of the sweetest most pleasant and best nature that I ever knew, desiring nor affecting anything but true honor.”

  • King James loved literature and wrote extensively including the Basilicon Doron which contains instructions to his son on how to live and be a just king. King James’ advice to his son concerning chastity:

    “Keep your body clean and unpolluted while you give it to your wife whom to only it belongs for how can you justly crave to be joined with a Virgin if your body be polluted? Why should the one half be clean, and the other defiled? And suppose I know, fornication is thought but a veniall sin by the most part of the world, yet remember well what I said to you in my first book regarding conscience, and count every sin a breach of God’s law, not according as the vain world esteems of it, but as God judge and maker of the law accounts of the same: hear God commanding by the mouth of Paul to abstain from fornication, declaring that the fornicator shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and by the mouth of John reckoning out fornication among other grievous sins that declares the commiters among dogs and swine.”

    Advice to his son on how to treat his wife.

    “And for your behavior to your wife, the Scripture can best give you counsel therein. Treat her as your own flesh, command her as her lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupil, please her in all things reasonable, but teach her not to be curious in things that belong not to her. You are the head, she is your body, it is your office to command and hers to obey, but yet with such a sweet harmony as she should be as ready to obey as you to command, as willing to follow as you to go before, your love being wholly knit unto her, and all her affections lovingly bent to follow your will.”

  • King James loved his wife, Queen Anne, and wrote beautifully of her. They had nine children together. Once, while out hunting, Queen Anne mistakenly killed King James’ favorite dog. Sir Dudley Carleton wrote in 1613:

    The queen shooting a deer mistook her mark and killed Jewel, the King’s most special and favourite hound; at which he stormed exceedingly awhile; but after he knew who did it he was soon pacified and with much kindness wished her not to be troubled with it for he should love her never the worse; and the next day sent her a diamond worth �2000 as a legacy from his dead dog….The Queen by her late pacification hath gained Greenwich.

  • King James is the founding monarch of the United States. Under his reign, we have the first successful colonies planted on the American mainland–Virginia, Massachsetts and Nova Scotia. King James ordered, wrote and authorized this Evangelistic Grant Charter to settle the Colony of Virginia:

    “To make habitation…and to deduce a colony of sundry of our people into that part of America, commonly called Virginia…in propogating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness…to bring a settled and quiet government.”

Sources: Wikipedia, http://www.edinburghcity.org.uk/attractions/castle-history/, http://scotlandsmary.com/james-i-vi/, https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm, http://www.israelitesunite.com/king-james.html

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Occult Roots Of The Modern Bible Versions

Occult Roots Of The Modern Bible Versions

By David J. Stewart | October 2014

2nd Corinthians 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.”

Luciferian Doctrines Infiltrating The Christian Churches

In essence, Theosophy is the worship of Lucifer. Occultists Helena P. Blavatsky and Henry S. Olcott founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Their number one goal, as stated in “The Secret Doctrine” (a book written by Blavatsky), is “To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Man without distinction of race, colour, sex, or creed.” (The Secret Doctrine, 1888, Index, p. 32)

The founder of “Lucifer” Magazine in 1887, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), and editor Annie Besant (1847-1933), along with other occultists believed that Christian churches were the key to introducing the doctrines of Lucifer to large masses of people. The 1904 annual report of the Theosophical Society stated:

“I believe it is through the Churches and not through the Theosophical Society that Theosophy [the worship of Lucifer]… must and should come to large bodies of people in the West.” (Transactions of the Theosophical Society, H. P. Blavatsky, Annie Besant, 1904, p. 377).

And then just eight years later the 1912 report of the Theosophical Society stated:

“Our Lodges continue their propaganda work….Outside the Lodges many of the members engage in what is really Theosophical work such as lecturing, talking on the principles we are trying to put forward, preaching and other activities in connection with the Christian Churches and other organizations….” (Theosophist Magazine, Annie Besant, 1912, p. 88).

Nineteenth-century occult mystic Fenton Hort is perhaps best known for his part in the work of the corrupt bible revision committee of 1881. Speaking on the subject of creating a new eclectic New Testament text Hort stated:

“At present, very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if the process is allowed to go on quietly;” (Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 400).

In the Old Testament Jeremiah said that their course is evil, and their force is not right” (Jeremiah 23:10). The apostle Paul warned, “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; whose end shall be according to their works.” (II Corinthians 11:14,15). Here’s some startling information about how Theosophy has infiltrated groups Like “Focus On The Family” and “Christianity Today” magazine. Satan is not sitting idle as are most churches today. Rather, Satan “knoweth that he hath but a short time” (Revelation 12:12). Although this particular Scripture reference is to the time during the Tribulation, it is clear to anybody with spiritual discernment that we are living in the end times (toes mixed of iron and clay on Nebuchadnezzar’s image in Daniel 2:31-45).

Westcott and Hort butchered the Greek. Rudolph Kittles butchered the Hebrew. All of the modern so-called easy-to-read Bible versions have been corrupted by Luciferian-worshipping occultists. Sadly, the average churchgoer doesn’t realize it, and worst, the ones that have been warned don’t care enough to address the issue. Please research the evidence. When you do, you’ll trash your modern Bible version and cherish the trustworthy King James Bible. END

The “Easy To Read” Lie Behind Modern Corrupt Bible Versions

T H E   N I N E T E E N T H   C E N T U R Y   O C C U L T   R E V I V A L

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) The Legacy of Westcott & Hort

Excellent Information by Dr. Barbara Aho

We learn from history that we do not learn from history,” observed the German philosopher, George W.F. Hegel. The familiar axiom is at once lamentable and understandable. For the common man does not have at his disposal a store of reliable information upon which to base educated judgments, but a bewildering mass of half-truth, untruth, and skewed data. Among the purveyors of misinformation are undiscerning historians, who scarcely take notice of those organizations which maintain a covert existence, and revisionist historians who misrepresent the secret societies to serve their agenda.

Exceptional recorders of human events who probe beyond the aura of mystery surrounding the arcane Traditions discover that a veritable “occult underground” exists and has existed throughout human history. The more perceptive find within the multiform kingdom of the cults that individual persuasions share a common agenda: to conform their society to a mutual set of philosophical ideals. Among these few will be found historian James Webb. With the pen of a ready writer, Webb has explored The Occult Underground of Western Civilization — from the Renaissance through the rise of modern Spiritualism.

The Renaissance or rebirth describes the radical and comprehensive changes which occurred in European culture during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Protestant Reformation commenced in 1517, being firmly established in Europe fifty years later. Webb explains:

“From one point of view, what had occurred during the Renaissance/Reformation was roughly this: what might be called the Establishment culture of Western Europe, based entirely upon Christian values as defined by Rome, had at last yielded up its monopoly of jurisdiction — never in theory, of course, but certainly in practice…The Renaissance represents the cultural release from the papal strait-jacket; the Reformation, the same release expressed in religious terms.” (1)

Renaissance scholars believed that Western Civilization had progressed beyond the barbarism of the Middle Ages, having found its inspiration and closest parallel in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. Humanism replaced medieval duty to God and the King and Renaissance men, such as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Marsilio Ficino of the Platonic Academy in Florence, revived the artistic styles and metaphysical values of classical antiquity, notably in Italy. However, freedom from religious conscription produced a form of culture shock. Under the veneer of the revival of arts and refinement of culture, interest in the occult, magic, and astrology flourished as a substitute for religious faith.

“In other words, the material of the occult Traditions, whether in the rarified form of Metaphysical speculation or in the practical manifestation of magic, was common currency. This resulted from a period of uncertainty during which both the cultivated and the uncultured alike were searching for a departed security. The New Man of the Renaissance, liberated from his prison of the Middle Ages, flexed his muscles, and tried them on the Traditions . . .The figure of the Renaissance man is not complete if the place of the Magician is forgotten. Ficino was scholar, priest, and magician.” (2)

Ficino incorporated Platonic literature and the Hermetic sciences – astrology, alchemy, and magic – with Scripture, professing a Christian form of Neo-Platonism.

“Another source from which occultists have drawn their Secret Tradition is the school of speculation called Neo-Platonism. It has been argued that the seeds of Neo-Platonic doctrine were sown by Plato himself, but it is equally possible that the originators were his first-generation pupils in the Academy of Athens. Even the ‘magico-religious’ complexion of Neo-Platonism seems to have sprung from the Academy, where there was an interest in demonology and occult phenomena… ” (3)

The Catholic Church, in its alliance with secular powers, had permitted in a limited way theories deriving from Plato and Neo-Platonism as a secular support for religious doctrine.  However, the works of Aristotle had obtained entrance to Western Europe along with Neo-Platonism.  Aristotle introduced the “scientific method,” which was based upon observation rather than faith.

“Plato is the philosopher of the beyond, of the great metaphysical questions, and of the religious spirit. Aristotle is the exponent of what has come to be called the ‘scientific method,’ the careful study of observed data, and the commonsensical drawing of conclusions…  ” (4)

Roman Catholicism and other mystical religions such as Neo-Platonism, regardless of their differences, have more in common with Plato than with Aristotle. When the scientific approach obtained a foothold in Western Europe, it represented a serious threat to the existing order and undermined religious faith. By the end of the Renaissance, the two systems of philosophy which historically had competed for preeminence were reversed and Aristotle became the philosopher of choice.

“At the collapse of medieval society, Aristotle, the philosopher of observation and the scientific method vanquished Plato, the Metaphysician, logician of the beyond, and father of much occult Tradition … ” (5)

The Age of Reason

The Renaissance had been a severe but not fatal assault on the established Church and its alliance with European monarchies. The scientific method, which would be a threat to “faith in Christ,” was now granted an uneasy tolerance. Webb notes that, “For a time, this dangerous aspect of Aristotle was not appreciated by the Church — not until it was too late.”

“The Traditions had entered Europe with Aristotle, but, as has been explained, they were totally alien to the spirit of that philosopher. For a time the two strands of thought could draw support from the same sources. Both were opposed to the over-subtle theological approach of the late Middle Ages, and both employed practical experiment — for magical experiment is as ‘practical’ as any other. But the Traditional view is founded on faith, and is a religious attitude, while the approach of the Aristotelians was that of discovery by observation of what was. . . But by the 18th century the scientific method had triumphed and the Age of Reason began its much-publicized career . . . ” (6)

The triumph of Aristotle over Plato during the Renaissance eventuated in a mass departure from established religion, which was superseded by reliance on human achievement. The popular opinion of the Age of Reason or Enlightenment was Deism, which held that the universe revolved around man and although God had created the world, man was left alone to manage things.

“In the earlier period ideas of duty to God and King had given way to a recognition of secular standards and the pursuit of profit. During the 18th century there gradually developed an attitude of mind which enabled man to pursue with more success his worldly activities. In its extreme form this became Rationalism, and the Age of Reason was characterized, if not by a devotion to the things of this world, at any rate by a neglect of things belonging to the next. The Industrial, Social, Scientific and Romantic revolutions were all, in one way or another, the outcome of this concentration.” (7)

In this atmosphere of scientific rationalism, faith in the unseen realm diminished producing a decline in orthodox religion. Likewise, the pursuit of occult or hidden knowledge was adjudged by the Establishment to be of equally doubtful intellectual respectability.

“But after the turmoil of the transitional period had subsided the Traditions returned to their status as the interest of a tiny minority. They went underground — joined once more the opposition — because during the crisis of the Renaissance and Reformation, Aristotle and the scientific method had won.” (8)

The Romantic Period

The conversion from worship of a Supreme Being to Human Reason had produced no minor insecurity and many failed to make the transition. The Romantic era was an artistic and intellectual movement of the late eighteenth century which also glorified Man, however with emphasis upon strong emotion, imagination, freedom from classical correctness in art forms, and rebellion against social convention. Discontent with the pursuit of materialism to the exclusion of transcendent ideals, the Romantic search for significance found fulfillment in occult mysticism and artists turned to the mysterious East with its Tradition of Oriental wisdom. The music and poetry of the Romantic masters became “conduits of essential truth” and “middle class drawing rooms…seedbeds for discussion of literary, political and musical topics among the intellectually progressive.” (9)

The German metaphysician, Immanuel Kant, “challenged the salon culture to consign both the arid logic of ostensibly omnicompetent reason and tired reliance upon religious dogmas to the ash heap of bankrupt ideologies.” (10) Kant further advocated the establishment of a world federation of republican states and Georg Hegel later developed the Kantian method of reasoning by “antinomies” as the basis for his dialectical method upon which the structure of Marxism was built. (11)

In the 1780’s, young Frederich Schleiermacher readily absorbed Kant’s philosophy. Although he had abandoned faith in the deity and vicarious atonement of Christ, Schleiermacher would enter ministry and become the “Father of Modern Theology.” The evolution of his theology is described by Dr. Mark Devine in “The Apologetic Betrayal of the Gospel” as published in the Premise Journal:

“Doctrine then, odious to Kant in that it boasts of epistemological capabilities denied to it, is not dismissed by Schleiermacher so much as it is dethroned and domesticated. No longer will dogmas judge of true faith.” (12)

As minister and metaphysician, Schleiermacher enthroned, instead of doctrine, “the power of Jesus self-consciousness” which was diffused through the believing community and taught that conversion is an arousal of the universal God-consciousness. Since the unity of the original church was the influence of the Savior, in Schleiermacher’s view, “the essence of the church is fellowship.” (13) The extensive influence of Schleiermacher would uproot the German church from its doctrinal base, giving rise to new principles of higher criticism which rejected the authenticity of the Gospels, particularly the miracles, and also the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

The Occult Revival

Nineteenth century England and Western Europe experienced several major revolutions simultaneously. The Industrial Revolution had reconstructed the European economy; the scientific method of inquiry had challenged accepted religious norms; international communications removed geographical barriers; and the French Revolution of 1789 had created a milieu of abiding discontent among disenfranchised lower classes. James Webb records that “…in the short but significant upheavals of 1848 over fifty violent attempts took place to topple established governments.” (14) Socialist organizations proliferated which received their inspiration from the dialectical writings of Karl Marx (Capital) and Frederich Engels. In 1859, in the midst of these converging revolutions, Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species, which evolutionary thesis shattered the already frail faith of many in the established Church.

James Webb likens the crisis of consciousness which overtook the nineteenth century to the cultural adjustment of the Renaissance period and contends that it was, in fact, “a belated continuation of the intellectual upheavals of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.”

“What was happening was the final collapse of the old world-order which had first been rudely assaulted during the Renaissance and Reformation.. ..just when the Age of Reason seemed to be bearing fruit in the 19th century, there was an unexpected reaction against the very method which had brought success, a wild return to archaic forms of belief, and among the intelligentsia a sinister concentration on superstitions which had been thought buried . . . ” (15)

“Reason died sometime before 1865…” wrote the historian. “…after the Age of Reason came the Age of the Irrational.” Bereft of assurances of immortality after so great an attack on biblical revelation were masses of hopeless people “begging for a revelation which was scientifically demonstrable.” Ensuing was a widespread flight from reason and a revival of the occult Traditions that had been discredited during the Enlightenment.

The foundation for a modern Spiritualist movement was already in place through the enterprises of three eccentrics. Emanuel Swedenborg, “a Swedish engineer turned prophet,” who communicated with angels and spirits, had published the Arcana Coelestia in London in 1749; Franz Mesmer, “an Austrian physician branded unacceptable by the world of learning,” popularized the idea of trance and the concept of Animal Magnetism (c. 1775); and Andrew Jackson Davis, “a young American good-for-nothing who took to seeing visions,” became the first theorist of the Spiritualist movement through the publication in 1847 of his channeled work, The Principles of Nature, Her Divine Revelations.” (16)

In 1848 it was announced, “The gods came down to earth again…” (17) Mysterious rappings of spirits were reported by the Fox family in their home in Hydesville, New York. Modern communications catapulted this isolated affair to international prominence and ignited a revival of occult interest and activity which would become the modern Spiritualist movement. People longed for a new religion and it was estimated that, by 1851, there were 100 mediums in New York City alone. Séances became the vogue in Europe where mediums were in demand to entertain guests with physical and mental phenomena at private parties. In England, clairvoyants would consult the dead for a guinea a sitting. James Webb draws the inference,

“They could shout in the face of the bogey Darwin that they knew they were more than the outcome of a biological process, that they too had ‘scientific proof’–and theirs was the reality of the after-life.” (18)

Alan Gauld, author of The Founders of Psychical Research, estimated that, in England, by the 1860’s and 70’s “…the existence of four fairly successful periodicals suggests that the number of active Spiritualists must have been well into five figures. The numbers of those influenced by Spiritualism, or at least interested in it, may have been perhaps ten times greater.” (19)

The Anglican Spiritualists

The perplexity and inquisitiveness of the age had led to the formation of numerous Spiritualist societies. One of the early pioneers of Spiritualist inquiry was the Ghost Society at the University of Cambridge, England. The Founders of Psychical Research records the stated objective of the Cambridge Ghost Society:

“In 1851, was founded at Cambridge a Society to ‘conduct a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena vaguely called supernatural,’ and a number of distinguished persons became members.” (20)

The Ghost Society is also described in the biography of one of its founding members, The Life, and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by Arthur Hort.

“Two other societies…were started…in both of which Hort seems to have been the moving spirit…the other called by its members ‘The Ghostly Guild.’ The object was to collect and classify authenticated instances of what is now called ‘psychical phenomena’…the ‘Bogie Club’ as scoffers called it, aroused a certain amount of derision, and even some alarm; it was apparently born too soon.” (21)

The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of its History and the Life of Edward White Benson by his son, Arthur, present further documentation of the distinguished founders of the Cambridge Ghost Society:

“Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making inquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:

‘Among my father’s diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a ‘Ghost Society,’ the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.’

“Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.” (22)

Canon J.B. Lightfoot, Bishop B.F. Westcott, and Professor of Divinity F.J.A. Hort also served on the Revision Committee for the English Revised Version of 1881. Drs. Westcott and Hort produced a New Greek Text and created a new theory of textual criticism for this revision of the Authorized Version of 1611. Edward White Benson, who became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1883, married Mary Sidgwick. Edward and Mary became the parents of Robert Hugh Benson, who converted to Roman Catholicism during the Oxford Movement led by John Henry Newman. (23) Mary’s brother, Henry Sidgwick married Eleanor Balfour, the sister of Arthur Balfour, who became a future Prime Minister of England. Gauld reflects —

“To say that the Sidgwicks had friends in high places would be an enormous understatement. They were also, I should guess, among the most intellectual couples of the century.” (24)

Arthur Balfour’s brother, Gerald, was also the brother-in-law of Emily Lutyens, a disciple of Theosophist Annie Besant and foster-mother of Jiddu Krishnamurti, who was thought to be Lord Maitreya, the World Teacher of the new age.

“Lady Emily Lutyens, the wife of the architect, is interesting in this context. Before joining the Theosophical Society she had interested herself in state-regulated prostitution, and toyed with the notion of Women’s Suffrage. Her sister, Constance, went the whole way, was jailed and forcibly fed. Converted by Mrs. Besant, Emily became for ten years the devoted “foster-mother” and adherent of Krishnamurti. . . even among the highest reaches of society the crisis of consciousness made itself felt. The supernatural was no stranger to the family of Emily Lutyens.

“She herself had been born Emily Lytton, the granddaughter of the occultist Bulwer Lytton, and was the sister-in-law of Gerald Balfour, who with his brother Arthur became president of the Society for Psychical Research. The Balfours’ sister, Nora, married Henry Sidgwick, whose own sister, Mary, became the wife of Edward White Benson, and the mother of Robert Hugh. Within this family connection, it is quite natural to find at least one devoted Theosophist.” (25)

As an undergraduate at Cambridge, B.F. Westcott also founded the Hermes Club, which he named after the Graeco-Egyptian deity, Hermes Trismegistus. Subsequent Hermetic societies founded by other Spiritualists would become famous in England — one organized in 1884 by Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland, which was in close contact with the Theosophical Society, (26) and The Order of the Golden Dawn founded by MacGregor Mathers and Wynn Westcott. James Webb has elucidated the meaning of Hermes:

“In the history of the Secret Traditions the Hermetica became important because of the great value place on them in Renaissance Europe; in their context they are significant because they typify this magical attitude to life. The fact that Hermes is taken here as the founder of astrology, alchemy, or magic, the revealer of occult correspondences, is useful to emphasize that European attempts at practicing astrology, alchemy, or magic, often called the “Hermetic sciences,” have their origins in the same period of religious ferment as saw the flourishing of the Mysteries and the birth of Neo-Platonism… the philosophical position of the Hermetica, with its doctrine, that matter is evil and to be escaped, can be paralleled by the Gnostics.” (27)

In her Theosophical Glossary, Madame H.P. Blavatsky also reported the extensive use of Hermetic doctrines in Gnostic writings:

“Hermetic. Any doctrine or writing connected with the esoteric teachings of Hermes . . . Though mostly considered as spurious, nevertheless the Hermetic writings were highly prized by St. Augustine, Lactantius, Cyril and others. In the words of Mr. J. Bonwick, ‘They are more or less touched up by the Platonic philosophers among the early Christians (such as Origin and Clemens Alexandrinus) who sought to substantiate their Christian arguments by appeals to these heathen and revered writings, though they could not resist the temptation of making them say a little too much.’ Though represented by some clever and interested writers as teaching pure monotheism, the Hermetic or Trismegistic books are, nevertheless, purely pantheistic . . . ” (28)

A contemporary of B.F. Westcott, Mme. Blavatsky classified Westcott with the Gnostic philosophers, even laughing him to scorn in her channeled work, Isis Unveiled, for his credulity of The Pastor of Hermas. It seems that Anglican scholars gave the weight of Scripture to apocryphal literature from the occult underground with which she was familiar:

“In their immoderate desire to find evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament, the best men, the most erudite scholars even among Protestant divines, but too often fall into deplorable traps. We cannot believe that such a learned commentator as Canon Westcott could have left himself in ignorance as to Talmudistic and purely kabbalistic writings. How then is it that we find him quoting, with such serene assurance as presenting ‘striking analogies to the Gospel of St. John,’ passages from the work of The Pastor of Hermas, which are complete sentences from kabbalistic literature?” (29)

The Anglican Apostasy

In the early nineteenth century, England had experienced a series of Christian revivals which were continuations of the Methodist revival and during which formed the Evangelical party of the Anglican Church. Evangelicals converted during this awakening recovered the doctrines of salvation which had long been obscured by the sacramentalism and other enormities of the Church of England. Secular historian Alan Gauld noted the profound influence of the Evangelicals upon English society:

“By the eighteen-thirties Evangelicalism had begun to affect the whole life of the nation . . . Many writers have suggested that it was from the zeal and influence of the Evangelicals, and even from the legislation which they brought about, that some of the factors most characteristic of the Victorian middle-class way of life derived. Halevy says that Evangelical religion was ‘the moral cement of English society.'” (30)

Gauld highlighted the distinguishing feature of the Evangelical community: “It is indeed the pattern of family life which Evangelicalism disseminated so widely that seems in retrospect its most important legacy.” Notwithstanding so rich a religious heritage, the spiritual casualties among Evangelical youth were legion.

“The faith of children who were born into such households during the second quarter of the nineteenth century was to be severely tested. These children grew to maturity in a period when, for the first time in almost two hundred years, the discoveries and speculations of scientists and scholars were coming into marked and public conflict with the teachings of Christianity. It was, tragically enough, the most sensitive and the most intelligent Christians who were the most liable to succumb.” (31)

As detrimental as Darwin’s theory of natural selection, were other pernicious elements corrupting the younger generation of England and future clergy of the Anglican Church. The German scholar, Schleiermacher, was by this time molding the theology of Oxford and Cambridge in the Gnostic tradition. And the High Romantic poets of pantheism, William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, were assiduously read and highly revered among the university intelligentsia. Coleridge, who ultimately died of an opium addiction,

“…had been to Germany and returned as a fervent devotee of its theology and textual criticism. At Cambridge University he became the star around which grouped a constellation of leaders in thought, Thirwall, (F.J.A.) Hort, Moulton and Milligan, who were all later members of the English Revision Committee.” (32)

Another corruptive catalyst was the empiricist philosophy of John Stuart Mill, whose works attained enormous prestige at Cambridge and throughout England. The dominant theme of Mill’s Logic, (1843) was that the only legitimate source of information man has about the world is the physical senses; conversely, “faith” is not a valid foundation for belief.

The failure of much Anglican hierarchy to repudiate the higher critics and radical freethinkers scandalized the Evangelicals, whose outraged response was considered reactionary by the scholarly community. In 1861, Benjamin Jowett and six liberal Churchmen published a volume entitled Essays and Reviews, in which they expressed alarm lest, “…the majority of Churchmen, by holding fast the narrow, fundamental beliefs, should estrange themselves more and more from contemporary thought.” (33) Jowett himself maintained, “Scripture must be interpreted like any other book and some of the essayists were even more radical in their tone.” The portents of apostasy in the Church of England were ominous.

“It seemed to conservative Christians quite appalling that at a time when the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture was being undermined by Darwin and his allies, a group of those whose sacred duty should have been to shore it up again had conspired to hammer their wedges not under it but into it.” (34)

Many of the younger men of Trinity College at Cambridge were repelled by the Orthodox censure of the new speculations. In 1861 Henry Sidgwick, a Fellow and leading figure at Trinity, publicly defended the liberal manifesto of the clerical freethinkers: “As a learned divine (Mr. Westcott) expresses it, they love their early faith, but they love truth more.” (35) Sidgwick finally resigned his Fellowship at Trinity College in 1869 on the grounds that he “could not continue in that assent to the doctrines of the Church of England which had been a condition of his appointment.” It is noteworthy that in spite of this declaration, Sidgwick would be appointed to a position as professor of moral philosophy in 1892. Gauld records the rapid decline in spiritual aspirations among younger Cambridge men:

“Scepticism based on science flowed into and reinforced the older stream of doubt stemming from historical and ethical considerations. Their joint effect may be traced in the fact that whilst the outstanding Cambridge men of the 1840’s — B. F. Westcott, C. B. Scott, J. Llewellyn Davies, J.E.B. Mayer, Lord Alwyne Compton, E.H, Bickersteth, C. F. Mackenzie, Charles Evans, J. B. Lightfoot, E. W. Benson and F.J.A. Hort — all took Orders (three of them becoming great clerical headmasters and six bishops), the outstanding Cambridge intellectuals of the 1870’s — the Trinity group centring on Henry Sidgwick and Henry Jackson and including Frederic Myers, G. W. and A. J. Balfour, Walter Leaf, Edmund Gurney, Arthur Verrall, F. W. Maitland, Henry Butcher and George Prothero — tended towards agnosticism or hesitant Deism.” (36)

Henry Sidgwick, Frederic Myers and Edmund Gurney were from devout Evangelical families and were sons of clergymen, as were their mentors at Cambridge, Brook Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort and Edward White Benson. Sidgwick and Myers had matriculated at Trinity with the intent of entering the episcopate of the Church of England, Sidgwick having been influenced by his cousin E. W. Benson, who was a master at Cambridge before becoming a bishop and eventually the head of the Anglican Church. Alan Gauld explains Henry Sidgwick’s mysterious change of mind:

“…the waning of his clerical ambition seems to have been the result of his election in 1857 to membership of the Apostles, a small but extremely select discussion society founded in the early part of the century.” (37)

Gauld hints that the ideological disposition of this elite society was toward the design of a future global harmonization: “(The) Apostles had hoped that developments in the social sciences would before long make possible an equitable and frictionless society.” (38) He notes also the club’s profound effect upon its members: “The spirit of the society gradually came to absorb and dominate Sidgwick completely and to influence the whole direction of his life.” (39) Sidgwick’s memoirs state, “…the tie of attachment to this society is much the strongest corporate bond which I have known in my life.” F.J.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott were also members, Arthur Hort describing his father’s ardor and influence:

“…in June (1851) joined the mysterious Company of the Apostles…He remained always a grateful and loyal member of the secret Club, which has now become famous for the number of distinguished men who have belonged to it. In his time the Club was in a manner reinvigorated, and he was mainly responsible for the wording of an oath which binds members to a conspiracy of silence. ” (40)

Young Fenton Hort had initial reservations about joining the Apostles, but a letter from Dr. F. D. Maurice whose “teaching was the most powerful element in his religious development,” persuaded him to join. In Hort’s words, Maurice was “the well-known radical” who was expelled from his position at King’s College in 1853 for heretical views on cardinal doctrines of the faith, having published a story on the “divine unconscious humanity.” (41) Hort explained his change of heart to a Rev. John Ellerton:

“Meanwhile I had (don’t open your eyes too wide!) been asked to join the ‘Apostles’; I declined, but after hearing a good deal which shook me, begged time to consider. Meanwhile, I wrote to Maurice for impartial counsel, telling my objections, and his second letter contained a P.S. which left me no alternative. He said ‘he could not advise me impartially.’ His ‘connection with them had moulded his character and determined the whole course of his life’; he owed them more than he could express in any words…” (42)

An elite club for elder Apostles, the Eranus, was founded in 1872 by B.F. Westcott, J.B. Lightfoot and F.J.A. Hort. Arthur Hort records his father’s membership in this select society:

“He also regularly went to the meetings of a sort of senior ‘Apostles’ called the ‘Eranus,’ a club composed of elder men of various tastes and pursuits…” (43)

Henry Sidgwick, also a member, provided Arthur a profile of the Eranus for his father’s biography:

“The originator of the idea was the present Bishop of Durham (Westcott), and he, together with Lightfoot and your father, may be regarded as constituting the original nucleus of the club…It was not designed to have, nor has it from first to last had, a preponderantly theological character; on the contrary, its fundamental idea was that it should contain representatives of different departments of academic study, and afford them regular opportunities for meeting and for an interchange of ideas…” (44)

One eminent scholar who addressed the Eranus in 1897 was Lord Acton, a Roman Catholic who was appointed by Gladstone to the position of Professor of History at Cambridge. Lord Acton was distinguished for his vision of the ultimate “Universal History,” a mystical belief in a universal conscience of the human race which enables mankind to gradually evolve morally, and to progress in civilization to overcome the world. (45) James Webb correlated Lord Acton’s Universalism with the vision of religious unity undertaken by the Parliament of the World’s Religions at its opening conference in 1893.” (46)

The Society For Psychical Research

The Anglican clergymen who founded societies for Spiritualist inquiry became dignitaries in the Church of England. However, the younger Cambridge intellectuals whom they had disciplined in Spiritualist endeavors settled to work to establish a scientific basis for Spiritualistic investigation and proceeded to develop psychical research into a respected branch of knowledge.

“Of these (groups) the most important was that centered around Henry Sidgwick, Frederic Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury.” (47)

In 1882, Henry Sidgwick, Frederic Myers, Edmund Gurney, Arthur and Gerald Balfour founded the Society for Psychical Research. Sidgwick who became the first president of the S.P.R. continued in this position for nine years. His prestigious connections and influence at Cambridge drew a number of distinguished persons into the Society, which James Webb speculates fulfilled the function of “Spiritualist church for intellectuals.” Future Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, who was Sidgwick’s ablest student at Cambridge, would serve as president of the S.P.R., as did his brother, Gerald Balfour, and sister, Eleanor Sidgwick. The record shows:

“In 1887, Council Members and Honorary Members of the SPR included a past Prime Minister (William Gladstone)…and a future Prime Minister (Arthur Balfour); …2 bishops; and Tennyson and Ruskin, two of the outstanding literary figures of the day;…’Lewis Carroll’…with a surprising number of titled persons.” (48)

William Gladstone, Prime Minister from 1865-74, called psychical research, “The most important work, which is being done in the world. By far the most important work.” William James, the famous psychologist, philosopher, and father of author Henry James, became president of the American S.P.R. in 1885. However, in its industry and operation,

“… the driving force of the S.P.R. came very largely from the group of younger Trinity men of the 1870’s mentioned previously (p. 64), as having turned, often with reluctance, towards agnosticism. Among the eleven who were named, six — Sidgwick, Myers, Gurney, the two Balfours, and Walter Leaf became not merely members of the S.P.R., but its principle organizers, its very engine room. Closely linked with them was Sidgwick’s wife, Nora, and one of his former students, Richard Hodgson.” (49)

The Society for Psychical Research: An Outline of Its History, by W.H. Salter, President in 1947-8, mentions this detail as to Nora Sidgwick, who became principal of Newnham College, Cambridge in 1892:

“Mrs. Sidgwick…did not join the Society till 1884, for fear, apparently, that an open connection with so unorthodox a venture might prejudice Newnham College, in which then recent foundation she held a responsible position.” (50)

The original objective of the S.P.R. was to conduct research into “that large group of debatable phenomena designated by such terms as mesmeric, psychical and spiritualistic.” Committees were organized to examine telepathy, hypnotism, mesmeric trance, clairvoyance, ESP, apparitions, haunted houses, and to determine the laws of physical spiritualistic phenomena. In recognition of the important work accomplished by Benson, Westcott and Hort — the leaders of its precursor, the Cambridge Ghost Society — the S.P.R. Historical Outline posits,

“It would hardly have been possible for the new Society to undertake an enquiry of such a kind or on such as scale if several of its leading members had not already gained previous experience of the difficulties attaching to that type of investigation.” (51)

In its early stages, the S.P.R. held séances in the townhouse of Arthur Balfour of which his sister Eleanor was the principle organizer. Various mediums of reputation were investigated with the purpose of ruling out charlatans and determining if entities from the spirit realm or deceased persons did in fact communicate with the living. In 1884, Madame H.P. Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, was graciously interviewed by a committee of the S.P.R. Although Richard Hodgson later would report “the tangle of fraud, intrigue and credulity” associated with her work in India, the SPR was at first —

“…considerably impressed by the evidence of Mme Blavatsky and her friends, and in a report, circulated within the Society but not published, declared: ‘On the whole (though with some serious reserves) it seems undeniable that there is a prima facie case for some part at least of the claim made.'” (52)

Later investigations yielded positive results in the area of mental phenomena from prominent mediums, such as Mrs. Thompson and Piper, who were able to conduct “cross-correspondences” devised by the spirits of deceased S.P.R. members to communicate with their colleagues. (53) Edmund Gurney and Frank Podmore, as Secretaries of the S.P.R., investigated and classified information on numerous mediums and, with Frederic Myers, wrote Phantasms of the Living. Gauld notes that Myers and Podmore, who wrote the classic Modern Spiritualism, may have been practicing homosexuals. (54) Gurney died unexpectedly in 1888 from an overdose of chloroform and there was considerable speculation of suicide. Frank Podmore was found drowned in 1910. (55)

In 1896, Frederic Myers joined the Synthetic Society, founded by Arthur Balfour and modeled upon the famous Metaphysical Society. The Synthetic Society was devoted, not to the mere discussion of religious and philosophical questions, but to “contribute towards a working philosophy of religious belief.” Myers read two papers to this Society, which Gauld surmises “were based upon communications from the departed spirits with whom he was now convinced that he was in genuine contact.” (56) Myers had developed and written in the SPR Proceedings a detailed theory of the subliminal self, upon which he based his worldview and which emerges in Gauld’s summary of the five points presented in these papers:

“(1) The ‘preamble of all religions,’ the primary belief from which they all begin, is that our . . . material world is interpenetrated and to an extent acted upon, by another order of things, an unseen spiritual world. . . it is only if the existence and nature of such a world can be established scientifically that we may expect any rapprochement between the warring sects; (2) ‘The founders of religions have attempted to begin at once with the highest generalizations. Starting from the existence of God…It is possible that in all this mankind may have begun at the wrong end…'(3) …we possess or are evolving capacities which transcend merely terrene laws; (4) We can therefore obtain information about the metetherial plane by ‘communicating’ with the discarnate in the orthodox ways…their state is one of endless evolution in wisdom and love; (5)…the metetherial realm (is) a World Soul from contact with which we can in a suitable frame of mind draw in a revitalising strength and Grace…And linked to all…is a Universal Spirit…(whose) benefits may come directly through the World Soul…or are so to speak channelled through spirits nearer to, but still above, us.” (57)

In the early 20th century, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were SPR Corresponding Members and contributed to the S.P.R. Journal of Proceedings. (58) In a recent expose of Jung’s occult proclivities, The Jung Cult, Richard Noll gives substantial credit to Myers and the S.P.R. for Jung’s major theories.

“With the founding of the Society for Psychical Research in England in 1882 and the copious publications of its investigators, new models of the unconscious mind emerged. The most respected model was that of the ‘subliminal self’ by Frederick Myers (1843-1901), the ‘mythopoetic’ (myth-making) function of which resembles Jung’s later conception of a collective unconscious. Jung read widely in the literature of psychical research in medical school and his 1902 dissertation cites the work of Myers and others in this school.” (59)

The Founders of Psychical Research closes with the observation that psychical research emerged from the occult underground to a position of respectability within the establishment, largely due to the intellectual stature of the Society for Psychical Research.

“The concluding volume of the popular Harnsworth History of the World (1909) presents the work of the S.P.R. as the culminating point in the story of Mankind. Twenty or thirty years previously psychical research had met with much derision and hostility, but now the climate of opinion seemed to be changing for the better.” (60)

In 1887, based on his investigation of deceased persons believed to inhabit the spirit realm, Frederic Myers forecast the future of psychical research:

“I do not feel the smallest doubt now that we survive death, and I am pretty confident that the whole world will have accepted this before A.D. 2000.” (61)

The Society for Psychical Research is still active in London and is also accessible on the Internet. Current publications offered by the S.P.R. to interested seekers include:

“Hints On Sitting With Mediums; Tests For Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis; Trance Mediumship: An Introductory Study of Mrs. Piper and Mrs Leonard; Guide to the Investigation of Apparitions, Hauntings, Poltergeists and Kindred Phenomena; Psychical Research Past and Present; Survival: A Reconsideration, Do We Survive Bodily Death? Parapsychology and the UFO . . .” (62)

The Fabian Society

In 1881, Frank Podmore, who had joined the early Sidgwick group, met Edward Pease at one of the Spiritualist séances that were the vogue in London, at which time they became close friends. The next year he invited Pease to attend a meeting of this group in which the S.P.R. was formed. Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie relate this epic event in their history of The Fabians:

“In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost Evangelical faith. In February 1882, Podmore took Pease to a meeting at which this group founded the Society for Psychical Research . . . Among those who founded the SPR were Henry Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour — later a conservative Prime Minister — and his brother, Gerald.” (63)

Edward Pease spent one year in the S.P.R. as secretary of its haunted-houses committee, but then turned to politics with the conviction that a social revolution was necessary. For a time he worked with an associate of Karl Marx, Henry Hyndman who founded the radical Social Democratic Federation. However, Pease was of the opinion that social revolution must begin with educating the intellectual and wealthy classes rather than fomenting agitation among the working class. He organized a Progressive Association which was joined by Podmore and other young fallen away Evangelicals.

The Association split into the Fellowship of the New Life, a commune with utopian illusions, and a research/debating group which Podmore named the Fabian Society, after the Roman general who defeated Hannibal. Fabius Cunctator’s strategy which was to guide the Fabians was summarized in Podmore’s words: “For the right moment, you must wait…when the time comes you must strike hard.” The Fabians soon attracted intellectuals from various other dissident organizations. Of these, Sidney Webb, Bernard Shaw, and Annie Besant were members of the Dialectical Society influenced by the liberal millenarian aspirations of John Stuart Mill. As of 1886, the Fabian executive committee was comprised of Pease, Podmore, Besant, Shaw, and Webb. However, in 1889, Annie Besant was converted to the cult of Theosophy by Madame Blavatsky, whom she succeeded in 1891 as president of the Theosophical Society.

Upon this revolutionary base, Sidney Webb, his wife Beatrice and playwright George Bernard Shaw built an organization which educated the intellectuals, bohemians and disillusioned clergy of England in the art of “permeating” and using the machinery of government for their own socialist ends. The MacKenzie’s observed, “There was, indeed, no clear dividing line between spiritual discontent and political radicalism in the netherworld of dissent.” Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb argued that “socialism could be proposed without forfeiture of moral credit by a bishop as well as a desperado.” (64) The formation of the Christian Socialists and the Christian Social Union created the vehicle by which socialist doctrine would permeate the Anglican Church.

“…the first Fabians…had almost all lapsed Anglicans from Evangelical homes. There was a Christian fringe to the London socialism of the eighties, but this too was Anglican. The Christian Socialists came together in Stewart Headlam’s Guild of St. Matthew and the Land Reform Union; and the more respectable Christian Social Union, formed in 1889 — seeking in Fabian style to permeate the Anglican Church — soon attracted more than two thousand clerical members. Dissenting clergymen too began to find a place in the Fabian Society and the London Progressives, while Unitarian churches and centres like Stanton Coit’s Ethical Church provided a meeting place for believers and idealist agnostics . . . Socialism was for all of them, the new Evangelism.” (65)

As Bishop of Durham, B.F. Westcott also served as the first president of the Christian Social Union. The subject of an address at Manchester in November of 1895 was Christian Law, which Westcott postulated changes to adapt to variable social conditions:

“The Christian Law then is the embodiment of the truth for action, informs answering to the conditions of society from age to age. The embodiment takes place slowly and can never be complete. It is impossible for us to rest indolently in conclusions of the past. In each generation, the obligation is laid on Christians to bring new problems of conduct into the divine light and to find their solution under the teaching of the Spirit.” (66)

In 1894, the Fabian Society designated a large bequest to found the London School of Economics and Political Science. Philosopher Bertrand Russell served on the Administration Committee while Arthur Balfour contributed £2000 and also collaborated with Sidney Webb to introduce legislation in Parliament which would give the school university status. H.G. Wells, who had recently joined the Fabians, was “branching out into speculations about a new social order which naturally interested the Webbs.” (67) An elite group of Twelve Wise Men, which included Russell and Wells, were selected as the “Co-Efficients” who met to discuss and formulate:

“Ideas about racial improvement by selecting out the efficient…and Shaw was working on these ‘eugenic’ notions in his new play Man and Superman. Beatrice Webb called it ‘the most important of all questions, the breeding of the right sort of man.’

“…Above all they were avowed elitists, intolerant of the cumbersome and apparently wasteful processes of democracy, who wanted to see England ruled by a superior caste which matched an enlightened sense of duty with a competence to govern effectively. All of them, moreover, shared Sidney’s belief — which had led him to spend so much effort on London education and at the School of Economics — that social improvement depended upon the training of the superior manpower needed to carry out schemes of reform. Shaw was suggesting in his latest play that universal suffrage was a disaster, putting power in the hands of the ‘riff-raff’ and… Webb who could not wait until a new race of supermen had been bred up to establish the millennium, felt that improved education and intelligent politics would at least start the necessary process of regeneration.” (68)

Established as a long-term investment to educate and train an elite workforce to carry out the schemes of socialist reform, the London School of Economics is now one of the largest schools of the University of London, having also an international reputation. Over half of its 5,000 students and academic staff are from outside of the United Kingdom. Five of its former staff members have won Nobel Prizes and its Journal of International Studies, Millennium, enjoys worldwide circulation and recognition. The L.S.E. also provides consultants to many organizations, including the U.K. government, international bodies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. (69) The Ford Foundation, which funds and whose members serve as trustees on the Council of Foreign Relations, (70) provided a grant in 1967 to the LSE for a Centre for International Studies. The European Institute of the LSE participates actively in the European Series conferences and hosted the 1996 conference which held discussions on the European Union, i.e., EMU: How Would a Single European Currency be Managed? European Governance and Law, Europe in the World Economy. (71)

The New Testament Scheme

The progenitor of the Society for Psychical Research and the Fabian Society was the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded in 1851. In 1853, two years after founding said Ghost Society, F.J.A. Hort, and B. F. Westcott agreed, upon the suggestion of publisher Daniel Macmillan, to take part in “an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme,'” that is, to undertake a joint revision of the Greek New Testament. (72) The project was withheld from public knowledge during the twenty years required by Westcott and Hort to complete the New Greek Text and during the subsequent ten years during which an English Revision Committee revised the 1611 Authorized Version. However, during this period of nearly thirty years, Drs. Westcott and Hort maintained their involvement in the Spiritualist pursuits of their various secret societies and political cabals: the Hermes Club, Ghost Society, Company of Apostles, and Eranus. The following entry appears in April 1853 in The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort:

“One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough, and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” (Italics in original) (73)

The elimination of “Byzantine corruptions” would be the substitution of minority (1%) Alexandrian manuscripts for the Greek Textus Receptus, the Received Text which had been recognized for nearly two millennia of church history and which agrees with the majority (99%) of manuscripts extant. (74) Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was the professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850. David Cloud expounds:

“(Lachmann) began to apply to the New Testament Greek text the same rules that he had used in editing texts of the Greek classics, which had been radically altered over the years… Lachmann had set up a series of several presuppositions and rules which he used for arriving at the original text of the Greek classics… He now began with these same presuppositions and rules to correct the New Testament which he also presupposed was hopelessly corrupted.” (75)

Lachmann furnished the critical authority for Drs. Westcott and Hort in their formulation of a method of Textual Criticism, known as the Westcott and Hort Textual Theory. They hypothesized that the original New Testament text had survived in near perfect condition in two manuscripts other than the Received Greek Text, which theory according to translators of the New King James Bible, “has since been discredited for lack of historical evidence.” (76) In The Revision Revised, the brilliant textual scholar Dean John William Burgon refuted the claims of the Westcott-Hort Theory as:

“…the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the Traditional Greek Text, — that strange impatience of its authority, or rather denial that it possesses any authority at all, — which began with Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. In 1831), and has prevailed ever since; its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf (1865-72) . . . Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text, — their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess are not more ancient than the ‘Traditional Text’ which they despise;) — knows no bounds.” (77)

Dr. Hort had, in fact, repudiated the authority of Scripture, writing to a Rev. Rowland Williams in 1858, “There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible.” (78) To B.F. Westcott he wrote in 1860, “But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing.” (79) In response to this admission of a heretical position, Westcott wrote:

“For I too ‘must disclaim settling for infallibility.’ In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth — I reject the word infallibility — of Holy Scripture overwhelming.” (80)

Constantin Tischendorf (1815-74) was a German textual editor whom Dr. Frederick Scrivener of the English Revision Committee ranked “the first Bible critic in Europe.” Tischendorf traveled extensively in search of ancient documents and was responsible for finding the two manuscripts most relied upon in the Westcott-Hort Greek Text, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a wastebasket in a Catholic Convent at the base of Mt. Sinai. (81) In The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon described for his English readers the corrupt character of the manuscripts primarily used by Westcott and Hort, not to revise the Textus Receptus, but to create an altogether new Greek Text.

“It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. That in different degrees they all five exhibits a fabricated text…We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: — exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: — have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, — which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” (82)

The manuscripts in question were found to derive from an underground of occult scripture within Christendom that has been passed through successive generations since the apostolic era. As the occult Traditions have sought to infiltrate and transform the secular establishment, the Church has historically been attended by an Alexandrian Tradition, which seeks to smuggle Gnostic doctrines into the Sacred Canon via the “revision” or “correction” of Scripture. Bible scholar, Dr. Herman Hoskier parallels the folly of Israel returning to Egypt to the Anglican scribes searching for inspired writings in the ancient house of bondage:

“Nearly all revision appears to center in Egypt, and to suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian documents is unsound and unscientific . . . those who accept the Westcott and Hort text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the GoGospel listspon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine.” (83)

The Revision Committee

In 1857, liberal Anglican churchmen petitioned the Government to revise the 1611 Authorized Version, but were refused permission. A general distrust of revising the sacred text was prevalent and Archbishop Trench, later a member of the Revision Committee, called the issue, “A question affecting…profoundly the whole moral and spiritual life of the English people… (with) vast and solemn issues depending on it.” Nevertheless, in 1871, the Convocation of the Southern Province was appealed to and consented to a revision.

The Revision Committee was divided from the beginning, the majority of two-thirds being those in favor of applying German methods of higher criticism to the revision process. The first chairman, Bishop Wilberforce, resigned calling the work a “miserable business,” and protested the presence on the committee of a Unitarian scholar, Dr. G. Vance Smith. Dr. Smith, who denied the divinity of Christ, had nonetheless participated in a communion service at Westminster Abbey upon the invitation of Bishop Westcott prior to the first committee meeting. (84) Dean John Burgon has recorded that committee members were bound to a pledge of silence. (85) David Otis Fuller stated in Which Bible? that the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text, which altered the Textus Receptus in 5,337 places,

“. . . was, portion by portion, secretly committed into the hands of the Revision Committee . . . The minority members of the Revision Committee, and especially the world, had no knowledge of the twenty years’ effort of these two Cambridge professors to base their own Greek Testament upon these two [Aleph and B] manuscripts.” (86)

The liberal majority was guided by F.J.A. Hort, B.F. Westcott and J.B. Lightfoot, of whom “Hort’s was the strongest will of the whole Company, and his adroit-ness in debate was only equaled by his pertinacity.” Arthur Hort confirms that on the committee, “Hort seems to have been the dominating influence…” In 1861, Dr. Hort implied the necessity of stealth to Dr. Westcott —

“Also — but this may be cowardice — I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (87)

Subsequently pleased with the progress of the “New Testament Scheme,” Dr. Hort wrote in 1870 to a friend:

“It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first…The difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences…We have successfully resisted being warned off dangerous ground…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment.”(88)

In 1881, the English Revision Committee cast upon the world a New Greek Text and an English Bible which, in the words of one reviser contained “between eight and nine changes in every five verses, and in about every ten verses, three of these were made for critical purposes.” A treatise on modern translations, Another Bible, Another Gospel, includes twenty tables which compare hundreds of Scripture verses — in the English Revised Version and in modern versions based on the New Greek Text — which undermine fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. (89) One table examines modifications in the modern versions which change the interpretation of key verses pertaining to Bible prophecy. Obscured in the ERV and modern Bible versions are the identities of the future man of sin “who sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God”, the occult Mark of the Beast which he will cause all to receive and the Harlot religious system which is situated upon seven mountains. (II Thessalonians 3:3,4; Revelation 13:16-18; Revelation 17:9,10)

The Legacy

The secular historians of the nineteenth century progressive underground — James Webb, Alan Gauld, the MacKenzies — agree that the dominant figures in the occult/socialist movements were, with few exceptions, from Evangelical homes and whose the fathers were Anglican clergymen. The onslaught of skepticism, higher criticism and mysticism had assailed the citadel of Scripture but not the lofty ideal of social transformation which inspired Evangelical activism. The authors of The Fabians explained this anomaly —

“The lesson instilled by Evangelical parents had been given a secular form. Evolution or what (Sidney) Webb called Zeitgeist, had taken the place of Providence, yet what Webb described as ‘blind social forces…which went on inexorably working out social salvation’ did not relieve men of their moral responsibility. Victorian religion had taught that a belief in God’s purposes must be accompanied by an effort to discern and advance them. Socialists who substituted a secular religion for the faith of their youth felt the same compulsion.” (90)

Of the nineteenth century cast of noteworthy characters, it may be postulated that two figures stand preeminently at the fountainhead of the converging streams of twentieth century Spiritualism and globalism. During the thirty year period in which B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort were employed in the creation of a New Testament Greek Text and revision of the English Bible, they also guided organizations dealing in matters occult and conspiratorial. Their progeny includes not only the plethora of contemporary versions based upon Egyptian recensions, but also the Society for Psychical Research, which first propounded the principles of both modern Spiritualism and Psychology, and the S.P.R. derivative, the socialist Fabian Society, which founded the globalist London School of Economics and Political Science. The contribution of Westcott and Hort to modern spiritualism and global integration is indeed vast and is increasing exponentially as the modern prophets of occult Traditions receive international power to give full expression to MYSTERY BABYLON, which rides the Beast of the apocalyptic vision.

Another Bible, Another Gospel

ENDNOTES:

  1. James Webb, The Occult Underground, Open Court Publishing Company, 1974, p. 114.
  2. Ibid., p. 222.
  3. Ibid., p. 196.
  4. Ibid., p. 210.
  5. Ibid., p. 349.
  6. Ibid., p. 223.
  7. Ibid., p. 7.
  8. Ibid., p. 222.
  9. “The Apologetic Betrayal of the Gospel, Premise, Volume III, No. 6., July 30, 1996, ” Mark Devine.
  10. Ibid., “Friendship in the Salons.”
  11. “Kant, Immanuel,” Microsoft (R) Encarta. 1993 Microsoft Corporation. 1993 Funk & Wagnall’s Corporation.
  12. Mark Devine, op. cit., “Putting Doctrine in its Place.”
  13. Ibid., “Friendship and Communion at Niesky and Barby.”
  14. James Webb., p. 7.
  15. Ibid., pp. 7-8.
  16. Ibid., pp. 21-26.
  17. Ibid., p. 15.
  18. Ibid., p. 43.
  19. Alan Gauld, The Founders of Psychical Research, Schocken Books, New York: 1968, p. 77.
  20. Ibid., pp. 66-7.
  21. Arthur Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, Macmillan & Co., 1896, pp. 171-72; pp. 211, 219-20. Available through The Bible For Today Press.
  22. W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research, An Outline of it’s History, London, 1948, pp. 5, 6.
  23. Ibid., p. 127.
  24. Alan Gauld, p. 116.
  25. James Webb, p. 105.
  26. Ibid., p. 278.
  27. Ibid., pp. 198-99.
  28. H. P. Blavatsky, Theosophical Glossary, London, 1892, p. 140
  29. H. P. Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, Vol. II, Theosophical University Press, Pasadena, California, p. 243.

30 Alan Gauld, p. 35.

  1. Ibid., p. 44.
  2. David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, pp.271-72.
  3. Alan Gauld, p. 49.
  4. Ibid., p. 50.
  5. Ibid., p. 51.
  6. Ibid., p. 64.
  7. Ibid., p. 48.
  8. Ibid., p. 317.
  9. Ibid., p. 49.
  10. Arthur Hort, Vol. I, p. 170-71.
  11. Ibid., p. 242; also pp. 41-2,61, 64, 67, 76, 83, 92, 98, 105-6.
  12. Ibid., p. 196; also p. 198.
  13. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 184.
  14. Ibid., pp. 184-85.
  15. “Professor Lord Acton,” Owen Chadwick, Acton Institute, http://www.acton.org/
  16. James Webb, p. 73.
  17. Ibid., p. 36.
  18. Gauld, p. 140.
  19. Ibid., pp. 140-141.
  20. W.H. Salter, p. 14.
  21. Ibid., p. 8.
  22. Ibid., pp. 21-2.
  23. Ibid., p. 34; Gauld, pp. 274, 338.
  24. Alan Gauld, pp. 90-1 ff., 143 ff.
  25. Alan Gauld, p. 174; Webb p. 38.
  26. Alan Gauld, p. 306.
  27. Ibid., pp. 305-310.
  28. W.H. Salter, p. 31;Gauld, p. 338-9.
  29. Richard Noll, The Jung Cult, Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 31-2.
  30. Alan Gauld, p. 339.
  31. Ibid., p. 322.
  32. Society for Psychical Research, 49, Marloes Rd., Kensington, London W8 6LA.
  33. Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie, The Fabians, Simon & Schuster, 1977, p. 18.
  34. Ibid., p . 110.
  35. Ibid., pp. 183-84.
  36. Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, New York Macmillan and Co., 1896, Vol. I, p. 197. Available through The Bible For Today Press.
  37. Ibid., p. 283.
  38. Ibid., p. 290-91.
  39. London School of Economics Experts, http://www.lse.ac.uk/experts/intro/ELSE.htm
  40. Gary Kah, En Route to Global Occupation, Huntington House Publishers, Lafayette, LA, 1992, pp. 32, 61.
  41. The British Council, European Series, http://www.britcoun.org/european/euroseries/eur97thm.htm
  42. Arthur Hort, Vol. I, p. 240.
  43. Ibid., p. 250.
  44. D.A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., Defending the King James Bible, The Bible For Today Press, 1992, pp. 54, 57.
  45. David Cloud, Way of Life Encyclopedia, 1219 North Harns Road, Oak Harbor, WA 98277.
  46. New King James Version, Preface, “The New Testament Text,” Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.
  47. John William Burgon, B. D., The Revision Revised, Dean Burgon Society Press, 1883, pp. 241-42, 270.
  48. Arthur Hort, Vol. I., p. 400.
  49. Ibid., p. 422.
  50. Arthur Westcott, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 207.
  51. John William Burgon, p. 319.
  52. Ibid., pp. 11, 12, 16.
  53. David Otis Fuller, pp. 141-43.
  54. Ibid., p. 291.
  55. John William Burgon, p. 24.
  56. Fuller, pp. 293-95.
  57. Arthur Hort, Vol. I, p. 445.
  58. Arthur Hort, Vol. II, pp. 138-39.
  59. Watch Unto Prayer, http://watch-unto-prayer.org
  60. Mackenzie, pp. 115-16.

 

SOURCE: 19th Century Occult Revival by Dr. Barbara Aho

This is not my article.  I am posting it under the fair use act for educational purposes. (Section 107 of the Copyright Act) I found it to be very informative and I decided to share it with all of you.  I have posted it in its entirety, to include links and source material.  I did however correct numerous spelling & grammer errors.  FOr further information please contact the author or the source.   May God bless you and yours.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

NKJV /MEV Marijauna Bible

NKJV /MEV Marijauna Bible

The NKJV/MEV too be sure the New King James Version and /or the Modern English Version (‘updated’ NKJV) is not a King James. They marketed it like that in order to SELL more bibles.

Here are my problems with this version…First, as is the photo I posted from the back of my KJB /NKJV Parallel Bible it says that the NKJV is the perfect transition bible to the modern bibles. I call it the “Marijuana bible” LOL…although, I think we know more today and Marijuana is not necessarily a transition drug to all. It is true that like the KJB the NKJV uses the Textus Receptus (5309 manuscripts from Antioch)…however, it also uses the Critical Text (44 corrupt texts out of Alexandria). The KJ translators had the CT available to them but they discarded them.

Now here are some real PROBLEMS I have with the NKJV.

The NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.

 

 

 

 

The NKJV

22 omissions of “hell”,
23 omissions of “blood”,

44 omissions of “repent”,
50 omissions of “heaven”,
51 omissions of “God”,
66 omissions of “Lord”.

NKJV omits the word “new testament” entirely
NKJV omits the word “damnation” entirely
NKJV omits the word “devils” entirely

NKJV omits the word “JEHOVAH” 100% of the time!

The NKJV makes a very serious doctrinal error when dealing with the word “JEHOVAH” in Exodus 6:3. They change the word “JEHOVAH” to “LORD” thus making the Bible contradict itself. Even the corrupt “New World Translation” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible) has a better rendering of this passage.  LOL and they use the same manuscripts.

So what does Exodus 6:3 say? Please read carefully – “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” (KJV)

Now please note what the NKJV says – “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I was not known to them.” (NKJV)

If you will take a concordance and go back to Genesis 1 and go through to Exodus 6:3 you will notice that the word “LORD” is mentioned 242 times.

Did anyone before Exodus know God by the name of “LORD” before Exodus 6:3. The answer is a resounding, YES! Don’t just sit there, look it up for yourself.

So to eliminate the word “JEHOVAH” is not only poor scholarship but also perverts and damages the text making it contradictory. It is a key passage that shows God as He reveals Himself BY ANOTHER NAME to mankind. Someone on the translation committee evidently does not like the name, “JEHOVAH.”

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS

DEALING WITH SALVATION

The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces “are sanctified” with “ARE BEING SANCTIFIED“, and it replaces “are saved” with “ARE BEING SAVED.

In I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words “may believe” have been replaced with “MAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE” in I John 5:13.

The old straight and “narrow” way of Matthew 7:14 has become the “DIFFICULT” way in the NKJV.

In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads “casting down imaginations”, but the NKJV reads “CASTING DOWN ARGUMENTS“. The word “thought”, which occurs later in the verse, matches “imaginations”, not “arguments”. This change weakens the verse.

The KJV tells us to reject a “heretick” after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a “ DIVISIVE MAN“. How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as “divisive men”.

According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to “corrupt” God’s word. No, they just “PEDDLE” it (II Cor. 2:17). The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.

The KJV correctly says, “For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God …. “But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change “corrupt” to “peddling.” Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it?

The NKJV gives us no command to “study” God’s word in II Timothy 2:15.

2 TIMOTHY 2:15

KJV reads, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God.” NKJV and NASV change “study” to “be diligent.” NIV and RSV change “study” to “DO YOUR BEST.”

 

MATTHEW 7:14

KJV – “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life…”

NKJV – “Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life,”

Is the way unto eternal life difficult? No, that is false teaching. The way unto eternal life is “strait,” as the KJV says, meaning “constricted, restricted, distressed, narrow, restrained.”

 

MATTHEW 20:20

KJV – “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him…”

NKJV – “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, KNEELING DOWN…”

This is a wicked change. To kneel is obviously not the same as worship. “Worship” was in Tyndale’s translation of 1526. It was in the Matthew’s Bible of 1537. It was the Geneva of 1537. It was in the Authorized Version of 1611. Even the English Revised version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 retained the word “worship.” It was the modernistic Revised Standard Version of 1952 which changed to “kneeling.” Now the NKJV editors follow this same wicked error.

 

HEBREWS 3:16

KJV – “For some, when they had heard did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.”

NKJV – “For who having heard rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt led by Moses?”

Was it ALL or not all of them?  The NKJV make this verse to say something directly contrary to the KJV and to the Old Testament. The Bible plainly says that not all of the Israelites rebelled against God, but the NKJV creates a contradiction.

The NKJV also lines up with the (NWT) Jehovah’s Witness Perversion in dealing with the above.

DANIEL 3:25 The fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as “the Son of God.” The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads “or, a son of the gods,” and both NIV and NASV actually have the latter reading in their texts.  I hate footnotes…it leaves DOUBT as to what God really said!

The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.  The New King James Version / Modern English Version is a counterfeit my friend.

EASIER?  HARDER!

And by changing thee’s and thou’s they actually change the meaning of the text.  Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). He also said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be concerned about every word!

Let me help…and you will never be confused by thee and thou again.  ?  If it starts with T it is singular.  If it starts with Y it is plural…see EASY!

Archaic words?  Yes!  But the NKJV has them too as does every bible.   Many of the words are EASIER in the KJB than the NKJV.

Please decide what God is saying to Moses:

“And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exodus 16:28, NKJV)

It looks like God is saying, “Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws.” But look carefully at the accurate King James:

“And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?”

Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. “Ye” and “you” mean more than one person. “Thee,” “thou,” “thy,” “thine,” “doeth,” “hast,” etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The “y” is plural. The “t” is singular. Isn’t that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:7).

What Jesus said was, “Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again.” This is very important. Not only Nicodemus needed to be saved. But everybody, including him, needed to be born again. That’s why Jesus used the plural.

 

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir Lord
Matthew 18:26 before him saying, Master and worshipped him saying, Lord
Matthew 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him
Matthew 26:64 right hand of the Power right hand of power
Genesis 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb God will provide himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son the Son
Colossians 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity)
Matthew 8:19 et al. Teacher Master
Matthew 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master
Matthew 22:16 Teacher Master
Matthew 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ one is your Master, even Christ
Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ

 

NKJV Copies Jehovah Witness Version
NKJV KJV
Demotes Jesus Christ
Acts 3:13 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 3:26 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 4:27 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Acts 4:30 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Colossians 1:15 the firstborn over all creation the firstborn of every creature
Mark 2:15 OMITTED Jesus
Hebrews 4:8 Joshua Jesus
Acts 7:45 Joshua Jesus
2 Thessalonians 3:5 patience of Christ patient waiting for Christ
Demotes Trinity
Acts 17:29 Divine Nature Godhead
Philippians 4:20 our God and Father God and our Father
Revelation 1:6 his God and Father God and his Father
Colossians 3:17 God the Father through Him God and the Father by him
John 14:16 Helper Comforter
John 14:26 Helper Comforter
John 15:26 Helper Comforter
John 16:7 Helper Comforter
Works/Progressive Salvation
1 Corinthians 11:1 Imitate Christ followers…of Christ
Romans 3:3 faithfulness faith
Romans 11:30 disobedient not believed
Romans 11:32 disobedient unbelief
1 Corinthians 1:18 are being saved are saved
2 Corinthians 2:15 are being saved are saved
Ephesians 2:8 have been saved are…saved

 

NKJV Supports New Age Ideas
NKJV KJV
Works Salvation
Matthew 7:14 difficult is the way narrow is the way
Galatians 5:22 faithfulness faith
1 John 5:13 may continue to believe may believe
Ecclesiastes 5:20 God keeps him busy God answereth him
Progressive Ages
Matthew 12:32 age to come world to come
Matthew 13:39 et al. end of the age end of the world
Acts 15:18 from eternity from the beginning of the world
1 Corinthians 15:45 Adam became a living being Adam was made a living soul
Pantheism, Androgyny, Gender Equity
Luke 7:19, 20 the Coming One he that should come
Matthew 11:3 the Coming One he that should come
John 7:18 et al. the One he, his
John 4:24 God is spirit God is a spirit
2 Corinthians 2:10 presence person
Genesis 2:18 helper comparable to him help meet for him
Self-Esteem (“The devil made me do it.”)
Philippians 3:21 lowly bodies vile bodies
1 John 5:19 whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one whole world lieth in wickedness
Luke 11:4 deliver us from the evil one deliver us from evil
Matthew 5:37 the evil one of evil
2 Corinthians 1:12 boast rejoicing
Religious Tolerance – One World Religion
Acts 24:14 sect heresy
Acts 17:22 very religious too superstitious
Psalms 19:1 nations heathen
Acts 8:9 astonished bewitched
Acts 25:19 religion superstition
2 Corinthians 10:5 casting down arguments casting down imaginations
Titus 3:10 Reject a divisive man an heretic…reject
Relative/Subjective Standards
Matthew 5:32 et al. sexual immorality fornication
1 Corinthians 6:9 homosexual (catamites only) effeminate
omit all perverted persons sodomite
2 Timothy 3:17 complete perfect
New Age Name Game/Jargon
Matthew 23:10 et al. the Christ Christ
Psalms 109:6 omit Satan
Romans 6:24 et al. slave servant
omit 22x hades hell
omit 81x demon(s) devil(s)
Mark of the Beast
Revelation 13:16 et al. a mark on their hand a mark in their hand
1 Samuel 13:21 the charge…was a pim (positive identification microchip) they had a file…for the coulters

 

NKJV Uses Harder Words than KJV
NKJV Hard Word KJV Easy Word
2 Corinthians 3:12 we use great boldness of speech we use great plainness of speech
Amos 5:21 savor smell
2 Corinthians 5:2 habitation house
Ecclesiastes 2:3 gratify give
Isaiah 28:1, 4 verdant fat
Isaiah 34:6 overflowing fat
Isaiah 13:12 mortal man
Deuteronomy 28:50 elderly old
Judges 19:29 limb bones
Job 2:10 adversity evil
1 Samuel 16:14 distressing evil
Jeremiah 19:3 catastrophe evil
2 Kings 22:16 calamity evil
Ecclesiastes 12:1 difficult evil
Ecclesiastes 8:5 harmful evil
Ezekiel 5:16 terrible evil

HARD WORDS FOUND IN THE NKJV

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths [not to get clean,] bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty, borne, breach, brandished, bray, bristling, buffet, buckler, bulrush, burnished, butress, calamus, caldron, capital, carcasses, carnally, carrion, cassia, caulkers, centurion, chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste, chasten, chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern, citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven, commission, commonwealth [not shared money,] compound, concede, compulsory, conciliation, concubine, congealed, contemptuously, confederacy, contingents, corban, coriander, countenance, couriers  covert, crags, crescents, crest, cropped, cubit, custodian [not the one who cleans the school halls,] curds, dainties, dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed, deride, despoiled, diadem, diffuses, dilapidation, dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner, docile, dragnet,  dregs, drachmas, dropsy, dross, dryshod, eczema, edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails, envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise, expiration, faction, fallow, famish, fare, fatlings, feigned festal, fetched, fidelity, figurehead, filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers, fuller furlongs, gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew, homers, hoopoe, immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy, jubilation, kors, laden, lamentations, laud, lusty, mail [not a letter,] mammon, matrix [other than the movie,] mattock, mercenaries, mina [not a type of bird,] mite [not a bed bug,] moorings, nativity, offal, offscouring, omnipotent, oracle, pangs, papyrus [not a fruit,] paramours, parapet, penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins [not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot,] pinions [not a type of nut,] plaited [not dishes,] platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice, Praetorium, prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators, propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver, rampart  ravenous, ravished, raze [not to lift up,] reconciliation, recount, rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled [does not have to do with guns,] rivulets, rogue, salute [ does not have to do with the army,] satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle [not a type of bus or spaceship,] siegeworks, sistrums [not an affectionate term for your sisters,] skiff, soothsayer, spelt straits, superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng, timbrel, tittle, tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton, warp, wend, wield, winebibber, woof, wrought.

 

None of the translators of the NKJV  believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God.

 

THE NKJV / MEV IS A DANGEROUS, COUNTERFEIT! 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

If Jesus is God, then why did He pray to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

If Jesus is God, then why did He pray to Himself in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Recently on Facebook, a gentleman asked me this question.

His question, who was Jesus praying to?  Very good question… I liked it. And far after you and I are gone scholars will debate this. So…here is what I know.

Since the Bible affirms that Jesus is God, it is often perplexing to note that Jesus addresses God in prayer.  The answer is found in an understanding of the Trinity; 1 John 5:7, Romans 1:20, Acts 17:29, Colossians 2:29 (by the way, you will only find that teaching in the King James Bible).  Jesus is the second person of the Trinity.  We also know from John 1 that God (Jesus) became flesh and dwelt among us.  Jesus was fully God and fully human.  In His human form He was separated from the Trinity…and therefore needed to pray to God the Father (1st Person of the Trinity). 

Jesus is completely human, but He also has a divine nature.

GOD
He is worshiped (Matthew 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Peter 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 10:28; 17:2)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Colossians. 2:9)

MAN
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (In the Greek it is like saying, Hey Dude) (John 9:35-37)
He was tempted (Matthew 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Romans 5:8)  — HE WAS RESURRECTED!
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

As a man, Jesus needed to pray.  When He was praying, he was not praying to Himself but to God the Father.

I hope this is helpful my friend. May God bless you as you…as WE try and understand His message to us.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?


ANSWER:  No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized version 1611 is the “revision hoax. They run to this seeming fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who overwhelm their feeble arguments with historical facts, manuscript evidence and too obvious workings of the Holy Spirit.  Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, “Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps

Once inside, they turn self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, “Which King James do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?”   I have been asked this by MANY Pastors, however, I have done my homework and they don’t get away with this with me.  The shock of this attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to make good their escape, but not with me and it shouldn’t be with you either!

Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.

Dr. Reagan pastors the Antioch Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee.  He has written a devastating expose on the early editions of the King James Bible entitled, “The King James Version of 1611–the Myth of Early Revisions.”

Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of Bible critics.  I see neither a way nor a reason to try to improve on his finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its entirety:


THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
Introduction

Men have been “handling the word of God deceitfully” (II Cor. 4:2) ever since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for man’s corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold: addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam’s day to the computer age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the sun.

One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.

One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As always, the answer is in God’s Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a food according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly! That is the purpose of this book.

I–THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611
If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on a printer in the year of 1611.

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that’s one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King James version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to examine these “revisions.”

II–THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF THE 1611 KJV
Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A. Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased toward the Authorized Version. In the section of Scrivener’s book dealing with the KJV “revisions,” one initial detail is striking. The first two so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of 1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors. According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638 Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!

Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one process–the purification of early printing errors–so the last two so-called revisions were two stages in another process–the standardization of the spelling. These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and 1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms. These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the character of these changes.

III–THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS OF CHANGES
Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let’s examine the evidence.

Printing Changes

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominant style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the Bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic “s” looks like the Roman “s” when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case “s” at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our “f.” Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German “v” and “u.” The Gothic “v” looks like a Roman “u” while the Gothic “u” looks like a Roman “v.” This explains why our “w” is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic “j” looks like our “i.” So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle “s” changed to “f”) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic “d” had the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the “thousands” of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600s spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600s a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional “e”‘s were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find mee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present- day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible. The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or vice versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener’s book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing–this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained–ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik–of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good–requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant–the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers–chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar–At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause–And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed–for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good–seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant–But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned–turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace–a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned–Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth–thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side–the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew–which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city–the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever–both now and ever (1638)

20 which was of our father’s–which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener’s entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has “seek good” when the Bible should have read “seek God.” Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words “good” and “God” in spelling shows how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as “chief rulers” to “chief ruler” and “And Parbar” to “At Parbar.” But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener’s appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no “revision” issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

IV–CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr. David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a 1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made:

1 1:5 the place–his place (1638)

2 2:16 shall be–shall all be (1629)

3 8:17 out, yea further–out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)

4 11:17 thing is it–thing it is (?)

Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation (“thing is it” to “thing it is”) is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That’s more than 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

V–THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS
Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, “For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English- speaking peoples of the world.” In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.

An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor, etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That’s only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four “revisions” and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That’s preposterous!

Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations is serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version.

1:13 sore travail; grievous task

1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind

1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great wisdom

2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with

2:3 acquainting; guiding

2:21 equity; skill

3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task

3:11 the world; eternity

3:18 that might manifest them; God tests them

3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts

3:22 portion; heritage

4:4 right work; skillful work

5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently

5:6 the angel; the messenger of God

5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official

5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy

6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child

7:29 inventions; schemes

8:1 boldness; sternness

8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness

10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment

10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull

10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success

12:9 gave good heed; pondered

12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars

This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 (“he that is higher than the highest”) is successfully removed (“higher official”). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where “the masters of assemblies” become “scholars.” According to the New King James, “the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.” The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd’s words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true.

In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.


Individual copies of Dr. Reagan’s excellent pamphlet can be obtained from:

Antioch Baptist Church
5709 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
(615) 688-0780
From The Answer Book, A Helpbook for Christians by Dr. Samuel Gipp.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Changes in the King James Version

Changes in the King James Version

In 1769 the Oxford University Press published an edition of the King James Version in which many small changes were made.  These changes were of five kinds:

1. Greater and more regular use of italics;

2. minor changes in the text;

3. the adoption of modern spelling;

4. changes in the marginal notes and references; and,

5. correction of printers’ errors.

This edition soon came to be known as “The Oxford Standard” edition, because it was widely accepted as a standard text by commentators and other publishers.  The editions of the King James version published in our century generally reproduce this Oxford edition of 1769, with or without the marginal notes.  The following information is given so that the reader may gain an accurate impression of how far the modern editions differ from the original King James Version of 1611.

§ 1. ITALICIZED WORDS OR PHRASES

The King James Version was originally printed in the type style known as “black letter,” which has the following appearance:

The booke of the generation of Iesus Christ

Words of the translation which were supplied to make the sense clear, but which were not represented in the Greek text used by the translators, were often set in small “roman” type:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

In later editions, the ordinary text was set in roman type, with the supplied words in italics:

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.

This typographical feature was not employed very consistently in the 1611 edition; in many places, the supplied words are not indicated as one might expect. This inconsistency was probably the fault of the printer’s compositors, who very often modified even the spelling of words in order to lengthen or shorten a line of type.

The editors of the 1769 Oxford edition undertook, therefore, to regularize the use of italics by italicizing all words of the translation which did not have a counterpart in the text of Stephens 1550. Consequently, modern editions of the King James version are much more heavily italicized than the original: In Matthew, the 1611 edition uses roman type 69 times, whereas the more exact 1769 edition uses italics 384 times. The reader should be aware of the fact that the King James version is not, strictly speaking, a translation of Estienne 1550; and so in some cases, the modern italics are misleading if used as an indication of the readings upon which the version is based. For example, in Mark 8:14 the modern editions italicize the words the disciples because they are not in Estienne, but it is evident that here the King James translators were following, as usual, the text of Beza 1598, where the words hoi mathetai are found. The following is a complete list of such cases.

Abbreviations:
S – Stephens 1550
B – Beza 1598
E – Elzevir 1624
C – Complutensian Polyglot 1522
Er – Erasmus 1527
Vul – Clementine Vulgate 1592
Tyn – Tyndale 1535
Gen – Genevan Bible 1560
Bish – Bishops Bible 1568
Mark 8:14 Modern editions italicize the disciples, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Mark 9:42 Modern editions italicize these, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C Vul.
John 8:6 Modern editions italicize as though he heard them not at end of verse, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C S1546 S1549 and the Bishops’ Bible.
Acts 1:4 Modern editions italicize them after assembled together with, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:3 Modern editions italicize because I know, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
Acts 26:18 Modern editions italicize and before to turn, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B.
1 Cor 14:10 Modern editions print the words of them in ordinary type, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 had them in italics, in accordance with Vul.
Heb 12:24 Modern editions italicize that of before Abel, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon Er.
1 John 3:16 Modern editions italicize of God after love, in accordance with S E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C B.
Rev 11:14 Modern editions italicize and before behold, in accordance with S. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon B Vul.
Rev 19:18 Modern editions italicize both before free, in accordance with S B E. But the text of 1611 was probably based upon C.

§ 2. MINOR ALTERATIONS OF THE TEXT

The following list includes all changes to the text of 1611 which do not involve the correction of obvious errors of the press (examples of which are given in § 5 below), or changes of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Most of these changes were made with reference to the text of Estienne 1550, and with a view to greater clarity or accuracy. The changes marked with an asterisk “*” are all those which are considered improper or unnecessary by F.H.A. Scrivener, an eminent authority on the text of the KJV, in his book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. (Cambridge: University Press, 1884).

* Mat 3:12 Add he before will burn up. Rejected by Scrivener.
Mat 6:3 Add hand after right. Approved by Scrivener.
* Mat 9:34 Omit the before devils.
* Mat 12:23 Add not before this the son.
* Mat 13:6 Read had no root instead of had not root.
Mat 16:16 Add the before Christ.
Mat 16:19 Add and before whatsoever thou shalt loose.
Mat 26:75 Read word instead of words.
Mat 27:22 Read Pilate saith instead of Pilate said.
* Mat 27:52 Add the before saints.
Mark 2:4 Add the before press.
Mark 5:6 Read he ran instead of he came.
* Mark 6:7 Read he called instead of he calleth.
* Mark 6:53 Read Gennesaret instead of Genesareth. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
Mark 10:18 Read [there is] none good but one instead of there is no man good, but one.
Mark 11:8 Read branches off the trees instead of branches of the trees.
Luke 1:3 Add all before things.
Luke 1:74 Read hand instead of hands.
Luke 3:21 Omit and before it came to pass.
* Luke 8:8 Add had before said.
* Luke 11:16 Read others instead of other.
Luke 17:34 Add and before the other shall be left.
* Luke 18:9 Read others instead of other.
Luke 19:9 Read a son of Abraham instead of the son of Abraham.
Luke 20:12 Read sent a third instead of sent the third.
Luke 23:19 Read cast into prison instead of cast in prison.
John 5:18 Transpose not only because he to because he not only.
John 7:16 Add and said after Jesus answered them.
John 8:30 Read these words instead of those words.
John 11:3 Read his sisters instead of his sister.
* John 11:34 Read They said unto him instead of They say unto him.
John 12:22 Read tell Jesus instead of told Jesus.
John 15:20 Read than his lord instead of than the Lord.
* John 16:25 Add but before the time. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S B E. 1611: Er Vul.
John 21:17 Read He saith unto him instead of he said unto him.
Acts 2:22 Add and before wonders.
* Acts 5:34 Add the before law.
Acts 7:35 Read by the hand instead of by the hands.
Acts 8:32 Read his shearer instead of the shearer.
* Acts 10:9 Add top after upon the house.
* Acts 18:5 Add the before spirit.
* Acts 19:19 Transpose also of them to of them also.
* Acts 24:14 Add in before the prophets.
Acts 24:24 Read Jewess instead of Jew.
Acts 27:18 Read And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next [day] instead of And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day.
Rom 3:24 Read Christ Jesus instead of Jesus Christ.
Rom 4:12 Add who before also walk.
Rom 6:12 Transpose reign therefore to therefore reign.
* Rom 7:2 Read law of her husband instead of law of the husband.
Rom 7:13 Transpose Was that then to Was then that.
Rom 11:28 Read for your sakes instead of for your sake.
Rom 12:2 Read and acceptable instead of that acceptable.
Rom 14:6 Read regardeth the day instead of regardeth a day.
Rom 14:10 Add for before we shall all stand.
* 1 Cor 4:9 Read appointed to death instead of approved to death.
1 Cor 7:32 Read things that belong instead of things that belongeth.
1 Cor 10:28 Add for before the earth is.
1 Cor 12:28 Read helps, governments instead of helps in governments.
* 1 Cor 13:2 Read have not charity instead of have no charity.
* 1 Cor 14:15 Add I before will pray.
* 1 Cor 14:18 Read than ye all instead of than you all.
1 Cor 14:23 Read one place instead of some place.
1 Cor 15:6 Read After that instead of And that.
1 Cor 15:41 Read and another glory of the moon instead of another of the moon.
1 Cor 15:48 Add also before that are earthy.
1 Cor 16:22 Read anathema, Maranatha instead of Anathema Maranatha.
* 2 Cor 5:1 Read made with hands instead of made with hand.
2 Cor 5:2 Read groan, earnestly desiring instead of groan earnestly, desiring.
2 Cor 5:20 Omit that before be ye reconciled.
2 Cor 8:21 Add also before in the sight.
2 Cor 9:5 Add and before not.
2 Cor 9:5 Add as before of covetousness.
2 Cor 9:6 Add also after reap twice.
2 Cor 11:26 Read journeyings instead of journeying.
2 Cor 11:32 Add of the Damascenes after the city.
* Gal Title Add the Apostle before to the Galatians. 1611 followed another source. 1769: E. 1611: S.
Gal 3:13 Add a before tree.
* Gal 5:15 Add that after take heed.
* Eph 1:9 Read hath purposed instead of had purposed.
Eph 4:24 Read the new man instead of that new man.
* Eph 6:24 Add Amen at end of verse. 1611 followed another source. 1769: S E. 1611: Vul.
Phil 4:6 Read requests instead of request.
2 Th 2:14 Read our Lord Jesus Christ instead of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 1:4 Add godly before edifying.
* 1 Tim 2:9 Read shamefacedness instead of shamefastness.
2 Tim 1:7 Add and before of love.
* 2 Tim 1:12 Omit I before am persuaded.
2 Tim 2:19 Read this seal instead of the seal.
2 Tim 4:8 Add all before them also.
2 Tim 4:13 Add and the books after bring [with thee].
Heb 3:10 Read their heart instead of their hearts.
Heb 8:8 Add with before the house of Judah.
Heb 11:23 Add were before not afraid.
Heb 12:1 Omit unto before the race.
James 5:2 Add are before motheaten.
1 Pet 2:1 Add all before evil speakings.
1 Pet 2:5 Read sacrifices instead of sacrifice.
1 Pet 2:6 Add also after Wherefore.
* 1 Pet 5:10 Read called us unto instead of called us into.
1 John 2:16 Add and before the lust of the eyes.
* 1 John 3:17 Read have need instead of hath need.
1 John 5:12 Add of God after hath not the Son.
Jude 1:25 Add both before now and ever.
Rev 1:4 Add which are before in Asia.
Rev 1:11 Add unto before Philadelphia.
Rev 5:13 Add and before honour.
Rev 5:13 Add and before glory.
Rev 12:14 Read fly instead of flee.
Rev 13:6 Read them that dwell instead of them that dwelt.
* Rev 17:4 Read precious stones instead of precious stone.
* Rev 22:2 Read on either side instead of of either side.

§ 3. MODERNIZED SPELLING, CAPITALIZATION, AND PUNCTUATION

The following lists show every instance of altered spelling, capitalization, and punctuation from the first chapter of Matthew.

Spelling

It will be noticed below that fourteen is spelled two different ways in the 1611 edition: This is because early printers employed various spellings according to the requirements of space, i.e., they would lengthen or shorten the words orthographically in order to present the text in neatly justified columns. The ampersand (&) was frequently used instead of the word and for the same reason. Another graphic abbreviation sometimes used is the form ye (properly pronounced, the) instead of a fully written the.

begate/begat     dreame/dream hee/he sleepe/sleep
bin/been feare/fear knewe/knew sonne/son
booke/book foorth/forth publique/publick tooke/took
borne/born foureteene/fourteen shee/she untill/until
childe/child fourteene/fourteen sinnes/sins &/and

Capitalization

The use of capital letters in the 1611 edition was somewhat irregular, but in general, it may be observed that, in addition to proper nouns, common nouns referring to important persons were often capitalized, after the custom of the times. Pronouns referring to persons of the Trinity were not capitalized. Because each verse of the translation was printed as one paragraph, the first word of every verse was also capitalized. Below are listed all changes from the first chapter of Matthew.

1611 1769
Angel of the Lord angel of the Lord
holy Ghost Holy Ghost
his Name Jesus his name JESUS
Behold, a Virgin Behold, a virgin

Punctuation

The 1611 edition was more heavily punctuated than our modern editions, as is generally true for older books; but it appears that sometimes the punctuation was influenced by mere considerations of space, as in the second example below.

1611 So all the generations from Abraham to David, are fourteene …
1769 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen …
1611 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing …
1769 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing …
1611 That which is conceived in her, is of the holy Ghost
1769 That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost

§ 4. MARGINAL CHANGES IN THE OXFORD EDITION OF 1769

In the first edition of the King James Vversion, marginal notes indicating various renderings or readings appeared in 775 places in the New Testament. Of these notes, 34 evidently referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. They appear in the following places: Mat 1:11, 7:14, 24:31, 26:26; Mark 7:3, 9:16; Luke 2:38, 10:22, 17:36; John 18:13; Acts 13:18, 25:6; Rom. 5:17, 7:6, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:31; Gal. 4:15, 4:17; Eph. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:5; Heb. 4:2, 9:2; James 2:18; 1 Pet. 1:4, 2:21; 2 Pet. 2:2, 2:11, 2:18; 2 John 1:8; Rev. 3:14, 6:8, 13:1, 13:5, 17:5.

The editors of the 1769 edition left all of the original marginal readings and renderings unchanged but added 87 more notes, of which 17 referred to various readings of the Greek manuscripts. The following is a list of all notes added to Matthew.

1:20 Gr. begotten.
1:21 That is, Saviour.
5:22 That is, Vain fellow.
6:1 Or, righteousness.
10:10 Gr. a staff.
10:25 Gr. Beelzebul.
12:24 Gr. Beelzebul.
14:6 Gr. in the midst.
16:22 Gr. Pity thyself.
21:19 Gr. one fig tree.
22:26 Gr. seven.
23:23 Gr. anethon, dill.
24:33 Or, he.
28:19 Or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations.

Below are listed all of the alternatives added to the margin in 1769 which evidently refer to various readings of the Greek text.

Mat 6:1. Read righteousness instead of alms. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S B E.
Mat 10:10. Read a staff instead of staves. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: C S1546 S1549.
Luke 22:42. Read willing to remove instead of willing, remove. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
John 7:50. Read to him instead of to Jesus. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Tyndale.
Acts 7:44. Read who spake instead of speaking. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Vulgate.
Acts 8:13. Transpose miracles and signs to signs and miracles. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
Acts 8:13. Add great before miracles. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: unknown.
2 Cor 10:10. Read saith he instead of say they. 1769 margin: S. Text: B Vul.
Heb 10:2. Omit not and render For then they would have ceased to be offered. Because. 1769 margin: B E Vul. Text: S.
Heb 10:17. Add Then he said at beginning of verse. 1769 margin: no editors. The note evidently refers to the reading of the recently discovered Harclean Syriac version. Text: S B E.
James 4:2. Read ye envy instead of ye kill. 1769 margin: Er. Text: S B E.
2 Pet 1:1. Read Simeon Peter instead of Simon Peter. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: C Vul.
2 Pet 1:1. Read righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus instead of righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus. 1769 margin: S. Text: unknown (B E read of our God and our Saviour Jesus).
2 John 1:3. Read shall be with instead of be with. 1769 margin: S B E. Text: Vulgate.
2 John 1:12. Read your joy instead of our joy. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S E B.
Rev 15:3. Read nations instead of saints. 1769 margin: C. Text: S B E.
Rev. 15:3. Read ages instead of saints. 1769 margin: Vul. Text: S B E.
Rev 21:7. Read these things instead of all things. 1769 margin: C Vul. Text: S B E.
Rev 22:19. Read from the tree of life instead of out of the book of life. 1769 margin: C Vul. Text: S B E.

MARGINAL REFERENCES TO THE APOCRYHA DELETED

The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha are as follows:

Mat 6:7 Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mat 23:37 2 Esdras 1:30
Mat 27:43 Wisdom 2:15-16
Luke 6:31 Tobit 4:15
Luke 14:13 Tobit 4:7
John 10:22 1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21 Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34 Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7 Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3 Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35 2 Maccabees 7:7

§ 5. ORIGINAL ERRORS OF THE PRESS CORRECTED

The following changes are all from Matthew.

4:25 great great great
5:47 do you do ye
8:25 awoke, saying awoke him, saying
21:20 away? away!
26:34 might night

§ 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the student who wishes to learn more concerning the history of the King James version, the following books will be of interest.

Geddes MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible from the Middle Ages to the Present Day. Abingdon Press: Nashville, 1968. An excellent layman’s history of the English versions up to 1961. The original KJV prefix, The Translators to the Reader, is given in an appendix.

The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833. Reprinted by Thomas Nelson in 1993 as The Holy Bible, 1611 Edition. This is an edition of the King James version which exactly reproduces the spelling, punctuation, marginal notes, and chapter headings of the first edition. An exhaustive collation with the printing of 1613 was prefixed to the Oxford edition, but left out of the Nelson reprint. The following paragraph from Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the Bible, p. 35, describes the interesting circumstances surrounding the publication of this reprint. “For many years which followed the publication of the edition of 1769, even after its glaring imperfections had become in some measure known, the King’s Printer and the two English universities continued to reproduce what was in substance Dr Blayney’s work, when the public attention was claimed in 1831 by Mr Curtis of Islington, who complained that all modern reprints of Holy Scripture departed widely from the original edition of 1611, to the great deterioration of our Vernacular Translation [The Existing Monopoly an inadequate protection of the Authorized Version of the Scripture, &c. By Thomas Curtis, London, 1833, 8vo]. It is needless to revive the controversy that ensued, in which the case of the priveleged presses was successfully maintained by Dr Cardwell in behalf of Oxford, by Dr Turton for Cambridge, in the pamphlets which have been already cited in this section [Oxford Bibles, 1833. By Edward Cardwell; and Text of the English Bible Considered, 2nd edition, 1833. By T. Turton]. The consequent publication of the standard text in the Oxford reprint of 1833, which we have found so useful, virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superintended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape.”

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Cambridge: University Press, 1873. This book is a critical edition of the Authorized Version.

F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent Reprints and modern Representatives. Cambridge: University Press, 1884. This is the definitive work on the textual sources and history of the Authorized Version.

Luther Weigle, ed., The New Testament Octapla: Eight English Versions of the New Testament in the Tyndale-King James Tradition. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962. Full parallel texts of Tyndale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Geneva Bible 1562, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Rheims 1582, King James version (represented by Scrivener’s edition of 1873), American Standard Version 1901, Revised Standard Version 1960.

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

GET OUT OF THE STORM

GET OUT OF THE STORM

How to know if your “brother” or “sister” is saved or not.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.”, Matthew 7:21

I believe that there is probably no other Scripture in the entire 66 books of the Bible that is as tragic as this one.

The whole truth of the matter is that there will be people, a good many people, that stand before the Lord, assuming they are about to enter into the Glory of the Lord, the long-awaited reward…HEAVEN.  Only these poor tragic souls will be told they’re on their way to hell.  This is just reality folks.  I am so sorry to tell you this.  Can you imagine a worst possible illusion that you can have, one BIG mistake about your everlasting destiny?  Can you imagine, for a moment with me, in that moment to be mistaken about your salvation?

I’m often asked the question, “Are Roman Catholics Christians (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhist, pick one)?”  And I will turn it around and ask, “Do you think Protestants are just naturally Christians?”  What about this one, “Are evangelicals necessarily Christians?”  “But more important than any of these questions; Are you a Christian?”  Now, believe they will not want to embarrass themselves any more than they have and they will always say, “Yes, yes I am a Christian.”

This tragedy would make a Shakespearean play tragedy of tragedies blush!   Sadly,  it will occur and it does occur and it will continue to occur that someone would sit in church and end up saying, “But, Lord, but, Lord,” only to hear, “Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity, I never knew you.”

Don’t you know my friend that, Christianity is filled with people in all kinds of religious activities?   The church programs, etc.  Just think of all the Christian organizations, there’s no end to them.  With all of this confusion, with every shingle on every counselor’s door, every church building and crisis center will say, “Christian or Jesus”, how can we tell if someone is a Christian?  Is it really that important to know if so and so is really saved?

Wouldn’t a better question to ask is if you are saved?  Yes, that is a great question.  Please see my essay, “How to Know You Are a Christian: Ten Ways To Keep The Devil From Barking.”

For now, how can we tell if someone is a Christian?  Because he or she says they are?  Because their Pastor says they are?  Maybe they have one of them REALLY BIG BIBLES.  Or maybe they own Jones & Smith Christian Counseling.   Or maybe their Band is a Christian Rock Band called, I AM A ROCK!

Well, let’s get into it and see if we can figure this out.

Jesus tells us that there are two ways to know if someone is saved, that is if they are going to Heaven when they die.  This is important, I will explain why later.

  • They have LOVE FOR EACH OTHER. John 13:35, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
  • BY THEIR FRUIT (what fruit? I’ll tell you in a second.) Matthew 7:16, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

What FRUIT?  The Fruits of the Spirit (big S…Holy Spirit) ….are these 9 things evident in their lives?

FRUIT (beneficial results):

LOVE (Love is the greatest gift God can give.  This love is not a feeling, but a choice. It is the choice to be kind, to sacrifice, to consider another’s needs greater than one’s own (Philippians 2:3). Agape is used in all of the “hard” love verses in the New Testament.  God’s children are the conduits of His love, as they are empowered by the Holy Spirit.)

JOY (Joy is the natural reaction to the work of God, whether promised or fulfilled.  we have joy because of God’s grace. The next step in the progression is to allow our joy to become an action as we express it, although sometimes joy can be so great it is inexpressible (1 Peter 1:8).  Possessing joy is a choice. We choose whether to value God’s presence, promises, and work in our lives. When we yield to the Spirit, He opens our eyes to God’s grace around us and fills us with joy (Romans 15:13). Joy is not to be found in a fallen world; it is only fellowship with God that can make our joy complete (1 John 1:4). )
PEACE (God’s methods of warfare are not what we expected. Instead of a battle, He sent us the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus’ goal in coming to earth was more than simply to cease hostilities; He came to bring about a full and abiding relationship of restoration and love. The cost of this peace was His life (Isaiah 53:5).  Just as we cannot force another to be at peace with us, even Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross did not ensure that we would accept His terms of peace.  The Spirit-filled Christian has a peace that is abundant, available in every situation, and unlike anything that the world has to offer (John 14:27). The alternative to being filled with the Spirit and His peace is to be filled with alarm, filled with doubt, filled with foreboding, or filled with dread. How much better to let the Spirit have control and perform His work of growing fruit to the glory of God!)

LONGSUFFERING (Having patience in spite of your troubles.  Patience comes from a position of power. A person may have the ability to take revenge or cause trouble, but patience brings self-restraint and careful thinking. Losing patience is a sign of weakness.  The opposite of patience is agitation, discouragement, and a desire for revenge. God does not want His children to live in agitation but in peace (John 14:27). He wants to dispel discouragement and replace it with hope and praise (Psalm 42:5). We are not to avenge ourselves; rather, we are to love others (Romans 12:19; Leviticus 19:18).)

Gentleness (Might restrained. Humility and grace, to be gentle is to recognize that God’s ways and thoughts are high above our own.  we will correct others with easiness instead of arguing in resentment and anger, knowing that their salvation is far more important than our pride.  Quick to forgive.)

GOODNESS (virtue and holiness in action, desire to be a blessing, uprightness of heart and life.  It results in a life characterized by deeds motivated by righteousness and a desire to be a blessing. It’s a moral characteristic of a Spirit-filled person.  Giving to the poor, providing for one’s children, visiting the sick, volunteering to clean up after a storm, and praying for an enemy. Expressions of goodness are as varied as the Spirit is creative.)

FAITH (strong belief in God, complete trust in God.  Faithfulness is believing that God is who He says He is and continuing in that belief despite the vagaries of life. Functionally, that means we trust what God says in the Bible, and not necessarily what the world or our own eyes tell us. We trust He will work out everything for good. We trust He will work His will in us. And we trust that our situation on earth is nothing compared to our future reward in heaven.  We are called to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).)

MEEKNESS (Meekness is a valuable and important fruit and requires much study.   Putting God first in all things.  Meekness loves to learn. And it counts the corrective blows of a friend as precious (Proverbs 27:6).  Meekness begins when we put our trust in God. Then, because we trust him, we commit our way to him. We roll onto him our anxieties, our frustrations, our plans, our relationships, our jobs, our health.  James says, in this quiet confidence we are slow to speak and quick to listen (James 1:19). We become reasonable and open to correction (James 3:17). James calls this the “meekness of wisdom” (James 3:13).  Meekness is so important that it is the third characteristic Jesus mentions in His foundational teaching, the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). Obviously, the world’s ideal of the perfect man is very different from His. The meek are among those so favored that they will share in Jesus’ inheritance of the earth.  Three people in the Bible are specifically described as being meek: Jesus (Mt 11:29)
(Mt 21:5), Paul (2 Cor 10:1), and Moses (Num 12:3). Each of these men was amongst the most persecuted men in the Bible.  MEEKNESS IS A SIGN TO AN UNBELIEVING WORLD THAT CHRIST IS IN US.  Meekness does indeed require much study.

In Matthew 11:29, Jesus links meekness with lowliness: “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle [meek, KJV] and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” Ephesians 4:1-3 states:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness [meekness, KJV], with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The King James version is correct, as the Greek text uses prautes. “Gentle” and “gentleness” are incorrect because in this context they are only an aspect of the meekness we should express in our dealings with others.

Godly meekness cannot be divorced from its association with gentleness. However, this gentleness is not usually seen in the situations where the Bible’s writers use meekness. Notice II Corinthians 10:1: “Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you.” Here, meekness appears with gentleness, as though a similarity exists alongside a specific difference.

This does not mean the meek will take everything “lying down.” Notice Moses, who as we have seen, was the meekest man of his time. He did not hesitate to order the execution of about three thousand of the idolaters who worshipped the Golden Calf while he was with God on the mountain (Exodus 32:25-28). Against evil, this meek man was as stern as steel.

A meek person will feel the wrong done against him and feel it bitterly. But because he is not thinking of himself, his meekness does not allow his spirit to give vent to a hateful, savage and vindictive anger that seeks to “get even.” He will instead be full of pity for the damaged character, attitudes and blindness of the perpetrator. From the stake Jesus uttered, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).

A Valuable Fruit

This much misunderstood and maligned virtue is the antidote for most of the nervous anxiety that is greatly intensifying the normal day-to-day stresses of life. God commands us in Zephaniah 2:3:

Seek the Lord, all you meek of the earth, who have upheld His justice. Seek righteousness, seek humility [meekness, KJV]. It may be that you will be hidden in the day of the Lord’s anger.

How valuable is that blessing?

There is more:

The poor [meek, KJV] shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek Him will praise the Lord. Let your heart live forever! (Psalm 22:26)

Further, “The Lord lifts up the humble (meek, KJV); He casts the wicked down to the ground” (Psalm 147:6).

Finally:

The humble [meek, KJV] also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 29:19).

This is not a virtue to ignore because carnal men consider it a weakness. It may appear to them as weakness, but the spiritual reality is that it is great strength, an attribute of Almighty God and a fruit of His Spirit we greatly need.)

Temperance (abstinence from alcoholic drink, or self-control, self-restraint in all things.  Temperance is the ability to control oneself. It involves moderation, constraint, and the ability to say “no” to our baser desires and fleshly lusts.  Believers need self-control because the outside world and internal forces still attack (Romans 7:21-25). Like a vulnerable city, we must have defenses. A wall around an ancient city was designed to keep out the enemy.)

I BELIEVE THAT GOD DIDN’T JUST PUT WORDS IN HIS WORD TO FILL UP SPACE.  EACH WORD, UNLIKE MY RAMBLINSG ?, EACH WORD HAS SPECIFIC MEANING AND VALUE.  Jesus taught us how to separate the sheep from the goats…the sinner bound for hell and the Christian saved by Grace on his way to Glory because of Christ’s finished work upon the cross.

Why is it so important that Jesus made sure we knew how to tell if someone was a Christian?  I believe that answer is simple and to the point.

Ephesians 4:14, “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”

In order to protect us.  It is one thing to be a Christian and yet and entirely different thing to say we are a Christian.  If someone says they are a Christian…and they preach a gospel…and they are not saved, you will be blown to and fro…confused with the knowledge of the true gospel.  Remember, GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, 1 Corinthians 14:33, BUT THE AUTHOR OF PEACE.

Colossians 2:8, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

I have seen the face of mental illness. I have seen what it is like when people are unable to hear God because their minds are broken and cannot seem to connect to God even when they want to connect to God. And I know whatever gets your mind gets you. So one of the most important things we need to learn and teach others is how to guard, strengthen, and renew our minds because the battle for sin always starts in the mind.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:  (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”

It is important to know God’s Word, be in prayer.  The Bible says that if any man lack wisdom to ask for it.  James 1:5 We must know we are saved and we must have confidence in our salvation.  See my essay, “How to Know You Are a Christian: Ten Ways To Keep The Devil From Barking.”

Even though they are in church many people are uncertain of their salvation.  Some denominations teach that you can lose your salvation.  Some Christians believe they can lose their salvation.   Some teach and others believe you can’t lose your salvation.  Which is it and if it be so, how to keep from losing your salvation.

How can you be sure that you are a Christian?   Here are 10 true Christian values that will keep the devil from barking and you can rest assured that you have the Holy Spirit inside of you, working in you, which provide solid, biblical evidence that you are a Christian and that you can know that you are saved.  On the other hand, we may prove that even though you think you are saved, that you are not, even though you truly desire to be saved.

Let’s get to the truth and at the end, I promise that either way, if you want to be saved, you will be and you will have confidence that you are.  On the other hand, if you read my thesis and decide, nahhh, I’m fine, who cares, you will not be saved and you will know why.   Why in the world would you want to read my poorly written essay if you had no desire to be saved?  ?

See you next time, may God bless you and yours,

Rev. Kevin Airrington

Airrington Ministries

The Bible Rescue Co.

www.airrington.com

www.thebiblerescue.co

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

New Living Translation EXPOSED!

New Living Translation EXPOSED!

Robert J. Stewart

THE NLT IS A HERETICAL PIECE OF SATANIC TRASH AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN IN THE BURN PILE!

Advertisement for the New Living TranslationThe New Living Translation (NLT) is straight from Hell.  On their official website, NLT advertises with the slogan, “Accuracy you can trust.”  Unfortunately, the NLT is not very accurateThe fact that the word “begotten” has been wrongfully removed from John 3:16 should be enough reason for every Christian to trash their NLT.

In fact, I would rip it into shreds first to ensure that no one else is poisoned by it.  To say that Jesus is God’s “only son” is a lie!  In fact, God has many sons according to Scriptures such as 1st John 3:1, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”

Biblically, God has MANY sons, but Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son.  So you see, ANY bible which removes the word “begotten” from John 3:16 becomes heresy.  This includes most modern bibles such as the perverted New International Version (NIV), The Book For Teens (TBFT), the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Believer’s Bible (NBB), the Living Bible (LB), and many moreIt is tragic!

Let’s face it, the corrupters who are publishing demonic bibles are all out to make a fast buck, filthy lucre!  In order to reach the largest market base possible, they trim and water down the Scriptures as much as tolerable.  This is evilGod hates Bible corruption Deuteronomy 4:2, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”  Well, the NLT butchers have diminished God’s Word by subtracting “begotten” from John 3:16.

The NLT was published in 1996 by Tyndale Publishers.  Few Christians realize that there have been over 200 new Bible translations published just within the last 30 years.  It’s blatantly obvious that this evil is the result of much greed and love for money (1st Timothy 6:10).  The NLT is based upon Kenneth N. Taylor’s corrupted Living Bible (1971).  His perverted Living Bible sold over 40 million copies in North America alone.  Taylor died in June of 2005 at age 88.  It is wicked to corrupt the Word of God (2nd Peter 3:16).  Now comes the damnable New Living translation.  Although the NLT preface claims that 87 scholars were involved in the word of translation, I MUST seriously wonder if any of them really loved Jesus Christ.  1st Peter 2:7 reads, “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious…

How could any professed Christian who loves Jesus be involved in a bible translation that perverts the Word of God.  The fact that dozens of different ecumenical groups were involved in the work of translation speaks volumes as to the Devil’s attempt to water down the Word of God.  Increasingly, modern bible translations must be more politically correct in order to sell at high volumes.  So as the world plunges further into the depths of wickedness and apostasy, new translations must follow along if they are to sell.  Take a look at The Book For Teens bible, which is based upon the New Living Translation, not one mention is made of the blood of Jesus in the section on “Salvation through Jesus Christ” (Page A47).  The blood of Jesus is a taboo subject nowadays amongst many pseudo-Christian groups, thanks to heretics like John MacArthur.

As further proof of corruption, Billy Graham endorses the NLT on the front cover jacket.  Billy Graham is Mr. ecumenical himself, who has done more to unite apostate protestants with the Great Whore of Catholicism than anyone else.  2nd Corinthians 6:14-17 commands us to separate from the unbelieving world, NOT yoke up with them.  Ephesians 5:11 tells us to reprove the works of darkness, NOT fellowship with them.

Billy graham is on the Devil’s side, a friend of the world, and the enemy of God (James 4:4).  The Catholic Church is straight out of the pits of Hell and it’s about time that ALL the preachers around the world start proclaiming it.  Billions of souls are headed for destruction because of compromised and cowardly pastors and preachers who are afraid to offend anyone.  Speak the Truth!  Offend them!  Their souls are at stake!
43 Severely Corrupted Scriptures in the New Living Translation (NLT)

This is the evil. It is obvious that the NLT’s “thought-for-thought” methodology, while making the translation easier to understand, is less accurate than a literal (formal equivalence) method, and thus the New Living Translation Bible is absolutely not suitable for those wishing to undertake a detailed study of the Bible. Here are 43 of the most severe errors I could find in the NLT (New Living Translation) Bible.

  1. Deuteronomy – “sodomite” changed to “temple prostitute”
  2. 1 Kings 14:24 – “sodomites” replaced with “shrine prostitutes”
  3. 1 Kings 15:12 – “sodomites” replaced with “shrine prostitutes”
  4. 1 Kings 22:46 – “sodomites” replaced with “shrine prostitutes”
  5. 2 Kings 23:7 – “sodomites” replaced with “shrine prostitutes”
  6. Matthew 17:21 – entire verse omitted
  7. Matthew 18:11 – entire verse omitted
  8. Matthew 19:9 – half of the verse is omitted
  9. Matthew 23:14 – entire verse omitted
  10. Mark 6:11 – half of the verse is omitted
  11. Mark 7:16 – entire verse omitted
  12. Mark 9:44, 46 – entire verses omitted
  13. Mark 11:26 – entire verse omitted
  14. Mark 15:28 – entire verse omitted
  15. Mark 16:9-20 – entire passage is questioned by a footnote that says, “The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8”
  16. Luke 4:8 – “get thee behind me Satan” is omitted
  17. Luke 17:36 – entire verse omitted
  18. Luke 23:17 – entire verse omitted
  19. John 1:10 – says God created everything “through” Jesus instead of “by” Jesus as the KJB teaches
  20. John 1:41 – The NLT leaves out the phrase, “Which is by interpretation, a stone.”  Hence, the critical distinction between Peter as “the stone” (Petros), and Jesus as “The Rock” (Petra) is obscured.  This was no doubt deliberate to pleases Catholics who falsely teach that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built.  The Bible states in no uncertain terms, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1st Corinthians 3:11).
  21. John 3:16 – the all important word “begotten” is omitted, thus denying the deity of Christ
  22. John 3:13 – “which is in heaven” is omitted John 5:4 – entire verse omitted
  23. John 7:53 – 8:11 — entire passage is questioned in a note which says, “The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53 – 8:11”
  24. Acts 8:37 – entire verse omitted
  25. Acts 12:4 – changes “Easter” to the incorrect “Passover” (See Numbers 28:16,17 and Acts 12:2 in the KJB)
  26. Acts 17:29 – completely removes the “Godhead”
  27. Acts 28:29 – entire verse omitted
  28. Romans 1:20 – completely removes the “Godhead”
  29. Romans 16:24 – entire verse omitted
  30. Philippians 2:6removes the word “equal,” thus denying Christ’s deity
  31. Colossians 1:16 – says God created everything “through” Jesus instead of “by” Jesus as the KJB teaches
  32. Colossians 2:9 – completely removes the “Godhead”
  33. 1 Timothy 3:16 – “God” is omitted, says “Christ appeared in the flesh, thus denying the deity of Christ
  34. 1 Timothy 6:5 – “from such withdraw thyself” is omitted
  35. Hebrews 1:3 – the all-important words “by himself” are omitted
  36. 1 Peter 4:1 – “for us” is omitted
  37. 1 Peter 4:14 – half of the verse is omitted
  38. 1 John 3:16 -completely removes “the love of God”
  39. 1 John 4:3 – the all-important words “Christ is come in the flesh” are omitted 1 John 5:7-8 — Trinitarian clause omitted
  40. 1 John 5:7 – half of the verse is omitted, thus denying the Godhead
  41. 1 John 5:13 – half of the verse is omitted
  42. Revelation 1:11 – first half of the verse is omitted
  43. Revelation 5:14 – “him that liveth forever and ever” is omitted

NLT perverts the Godhead! 

1st John 5:7 is a vital Scripture that EVERY Christian should know.  This Scripture clearly proclaims that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are ONE.  But, the NLT says otherwise…

KJB – “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

NLT – “So we have these three witnesses.”

What blasphemy!  Many Christians have bought into the lie that 1st John 5:7 wasn’t in the originals –IT WAS!  It depends on which originals you’re talking about.  The Textus Receptus (or received text) from which our reliable King James Bible comes DOES contain 1st John 5:7.
1st John 5:7 in the NLT greatly contradicts John 10:30

“I and my Father are one.” -John 10:30  KJB

It also contradicts Luke 3:22

“And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

The NLT Bible-corrupters even removed the Godhead from Romans 1:20

KJB – “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

NLT – “From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

One of the most popular attacks that unbelievers launch against Christians is to say that the word “trinity” is not even found in the Bible.  The best defense is to show them the multiple Scriptures in the Word of God which teach about the GODHEADTragically, the word “Godhead” isn’t even mentioned in the NLT.  What?  Yes, that is correct…some “accurate” translation huh?  This is why I confidently say that the New Living Translation is straight from Hell.  Here’s Acts 17:29 compared…

KJB – “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”

NLT – “And since this is true, we shouldn’t think of God as an idol designed by craftsmen from gold or silver or stone.”

Many cults (such as Islamic Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses) acknowledge the existence of a god, but deny the Godhead.  It is tragic that so many believers are supporting these modern versions that maliciously attack the Godhead and Jesus’ deity.  Look what they’ve done to Colossians 2:9

KJB – “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

NLT – “For in Christ the fullness of God lives in a human body.”

I noticed a tiny asterisk mark (*) next to Colossians 2:9 in the NLT.  I looked to the bottom to see what the footnote said… “Greek in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”  Do you see what is happening here?  To make everybody happy, the NLT Bible-corrupters completely removed “Godhead” to appease the liberals, but then they’ve also placed the truth in a little footnote in an attempt to appease conservative protestants.  Why in the world would they not place the literal Greek translation in Colossians 2:9, why would they put the correct Greek translation in a tiny footnote at the bottom of the page?  Do you know what happens in the making of a new bible?  It’s kind of like the bargaining table at contract time between the union and company management. God’s Word belongs in the text, NOT in a footnote.

All the different religious denominations are invited to the bargaining table and a meeting is held to decide what COMPROMISES must be made to make the “new” bible acceptable to their particular denomination. This is all done in an attempt to reach the largest market base possible. By the time the new corrupted bible is finished, without fail, the Godhead (trinity) and the deity of Jesus Christ are greatly diminished. This is why I love the old King James Bible, it proudly proclaims the Godhead and the deity of our Precious Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

NLT perverts Christ’s Deity! 

One of the most important verses in the Bible is John 3:16.  As mentioned earlier, the NLT perverts this verse by removing the word “begotten,” thus saying that God only has one son.   But 1st John 3:1 in the KJB reads, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.”  Clearly, God has many sons, but Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God, which makes Jesus God.

KJB – “ “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

NLT – “For God so loved the world that he gave he gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” -John 3:16

The NLT teaches heresy!

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” -Galatians 3:26  KJB

The NLT also corrupts 1st Timothy 3:16

KJB“…God was manifest in the flesh…”

TBFT – “Christ appeared in the flesh…”

Jesus claimed to be Almighty God in Revelation 1:8.  For anyone (NLT) to diminish 1st Timothy 3:16 to a mere “Christ appeared in the flesh” is ridiculous.  Any idiot knows that Jesus appeared in the flesh!  But the KJB declares that GOD was manifest (or revealed) in the fleshly body of Jesus Christ.  It angers many people when you promote the deity of Christ, thus the reason why ALL modern bibles attack Jesus’ deity.

Again, the NLT perverts Philippians 2:5, 6

KJB – “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

NLT – “Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God.”

The NLT cleverly corrupted Philippians 2:6 by removing the word “equal.  In so doing, they have lowered Jesus to the god of the Jehovah Witnesses.  JW’s teach that Jesus is “a god,” but not Almighty God, which is a lie of the Devil.  By saying that Jesus is “equal” with God, the KJB is clearly declaring Christ as Almighty God.

 

As further proof of the NLT attack on Jesus’ deity, look at Colossians 1:16

KJB – “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth…”

NLT – “Christ is the one through whom God created everything in heaven and earth.”

Blasphemy! The KJB declares that Jesus created all things, but the NLT wrongfully teaches that God created all things through Jesus.

This is exactly what the Jehovah Witnesses cult teaches. JW’s deny Christ’s deity (as do most cults). JW’s teach that God created everything THROUGH Jesus. On the contrary, the KJB proclaims in Colossians 1:16 that Jesus Christ created all things HimselfAgain, the NLT denies the deity of Jesus Christ.  Anyone that cannot see this is either blind, stupid, a liar or all three!  It is wicked heresy to say that Jesus did not create the universe by His own Word.

John 1:10 reads, “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.” Sadly, the NLT perverts this Scripture also, claiming that God created the universe “through” Jesus instead of “by” Jesus as the Word of God teaches in the KJB. The JW’s would be proud of the NLT. Oh, listen friend, you need to burn your NLT because it dishonors and dethrones the Lord Jesus Christ.
NLT perverts Acts 12:4!

The NLT perverts Acts 12:4 by changing “Easter” to “Passover.” Numbers 28:16,17 clearly teaches that the seven days of unleavened bread FOLLOWED the day of Passover. Acts 12:2 in the KJB tells us that the days of unleavened bread were already being observed, which means that the day of Passover was OVER! So when the NIV and the NLT say that Herod was waiting for the Passover in Acts 12:5, they are lying! The KJB wisely uses the proper word “Easter” because the Passover had already occurred.
NLT completely removes the word “sodomite” from the Bible

God describes homosexuals with the word “sodomite” for a reason. 

Jude 1:7 reads, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The word “sodomite” comes from the city of Sodom, a city so vile and wicked that God decided to utterly destroy it by reigning down fire and brimstone from Heaven. To call homosexuality, “sodomy,” implies the judgment of God upon the wicked sin of homosexuality. 

The modern definition of sodomy is NOT the Biblical definition. Sodomy in the Bible is defined as sex between two men, or two women (homosexuality and lesbianism). We read of the woeful homosexuality problem in Sodom in Genesis 19:4, 5. American society has plunged horribly into wickedness and apostasy, even to the extent of corrupting the Bible for the sake of being politically correct to make money. Now there’s even a homosexual bible.

Get a King James Bible!

The 1611 King James Bible is trustworthy. We don’t rewrite Shakespeare because we can’t understand the archaic English; rather, we study it in the beauty in which it was written. To retranslate Shakespeare into modern English would be a literary tragedy. This it is a woeful tragedy what modern Bible corrupters have done to God’s Word. In the King James Bible we have the preserved and inspired Word of God. The Bible is to be studied, not read like a comic book or magazine. Too many believers have bought into the lie that we need a new Bible, and another, and another… where will it end? …The Satanic Bible?

 

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Keeping the Sabbath

Keeping the Sabbath

Rev. Kevin R Airrington
October 22, 2010

The 4th commandment tells us to keep the Sabbath Holy.  All through scripture we see this command.  Many Christians who love God, sort of hang their hat on this commandment.  And, there is nothing wrong with this, in fact, God bless them.  Jesus said if we love Him we would keep His commandments.  Although, He probably was not just speaking about the 10 commandments found in Exodus.   (John 14:15, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”)  Christians that try and truly “keep the Sabbath” as we understand it, are really saying, “I LOVE YOU JESUS.”  Who can argue with that?

No Sabbath Day holder would ever disagree with the following statement, “The primary purpose of the Sabbath is for us to rest from our worldly labors and to seek God.”  As an avid student of the Creation account and the Bible in general, I can assure that God was not tired after is creation work was complete.   *God set aside a special time for His people.  We will discuss the last sentence in more depth later.  God blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it or set it aside for a holy purpose.  We are commanded to set aside time for a holy purpose.

In this essay, I would like to discuss why I chose to not go to church on Saturday and I do not honor some of the traditions surrounding the Sabbath.

  • *The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
    1. Mark 2:23-28 “… The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
    2. Isaiah 58:13-14 The Sabbath was intended to be a delight, not a burden. The focus of the Sabbath should be on what we can do and not what we cannot do. (More on this later)  The Sabbath is a time we put down our own desires and spend time with God.
  • When is the Sabbath?
    1. Leviticus 23:32, “It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.” This scripture is clear that on the 9th day of the month from evening to evening we should celebrate our Sabbath.   Is this every Saturday?  According to this passage it may not even be on Saturday to begin with.
    2. Saturday in Hebrew is Shabbat, which means rest.
      1. Except for the Sabbath day, the individual days of the week have no names, just numbers.
    3. When God created the heaven and the earth, there were no calendars. Thus, no way to tell us when the first day of the week was.  Perhaps He may have begun on a Wednesday and ended the following Monday.
    4. It is only from our tradition that we assume that God started His creation process on Sunday and ended on Friday.
    5. Rabbi Yose ben Halafta (Died in 160AD) changed the Jewish calendar. So even the Jewish calendar cannot be relied upon.
    6. Exodus 20:8-11 “remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.” “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT LET THE “DAY” BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE “INTENT”.  Don’t let the “day” become more important than the “intent”.

From Scripture there is no way we can tell when the Sabbath was.   Even from outside evidence all we know is in the Hebrew it means “rest” not specifically what day of the week it is.    We cannot simply compare it to our weekly calendar and say, “well, we are not complying”.

  • In today’s modern society it is impossible to keep the Sabbath.
    1. I am sure that, “Sabbath Holders have run into this before and have their answer. Which is fine, but I cannot get away from what the scripture says.
    2. Exodus 20:10, “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:”
      1. If you use lights, gas, eat food or do anything that causes anyone else to work then you are not keeping the Sabbath.
      2. If your dog fetches your paper or your slippers you are not keeping the Sabbath.
  • There are other activities that the Bible tells us to refrain from in order to keep the Sabbath.
  • Going to Church…Worship on the Sabbath.
    1. Luke 4:16 is an example and Hebrews 10:25 tells us not to forsake the assembling of ourselves.
    2. We should go to church on the Sabbath and we need fellowship, uniting in worship and prayer.
    3. Today, it takes electricity to run the lights…causing people at the light company to work. If we flush the toilet then we cause the person at the water company to work.
  • What did Jesus do with the Sabbath day?
    1. While nowhere in scripture can we find an example of Jesus preaching on the 4th commandment, given He preached on the other 9, we do find examples example as in Luke 4:16 where Jesus entered into the Tabernacle on the Sabbath.
      1. This is different that “Keeping the Sabbath”. He did go to “Church”, showing us as in number 4 above that we need to be in church on the Sabbath.  Nothing more could or should be read into this.
      2. JESUS PREACHED ON ALL 10 OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS EXCEPT THE 4TH COMMANDMENT, THERE IS NO PREACHING ON THE SABBATH BY JESUS.
        1. Jesus was clear in His teaching of the Sabbath, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath!”  He also proclaimed that HE WAS LORD OF THE SABBATH.  Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5
        2. Isn’t someone who created something the owner of it?  Can’t they do whatsoever they please with it?  In this way, Jesus, being the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:6), has every right to do whatever He pleases on the Sabbath, just as anyone of the disciples had when they were with Him.  That’s why Jesus said that He was Lord of the Sabbath.  The word Lord denotes sovereign rights and ownership so who can tell Jesus what He can and what He cannot do on the Sabbath?  Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of the day because they were making the Sabbath something that no one could possibly
    2. Matthew 12:5-6, “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?…” Jesus was saying that even though the priests violated the Sabbath it was okay because there was something more important than the Sabbath.  The temple and the sacrificial rites were more important.
      1. Jesus, however, is more important than the temple and its sacrifices. The logical conclusion is that he is also more important than the Sabbath. Even before his death and resurrection, he was more important than the Sabbath.
      2. Although Christianity tends to reject the temple and the rites…the principle is still the same…”Some things are more important than the Sabbath.
  • The Pharisees needed to worry more about Jesus (The Holy One) instead of a holy activity on a holy day.
  1. Jesus then summarized his argument about the Sabbath and about his own identity: “If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (verses 7-8).
  2. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that love for humans is more important than sticking to worship rituals.
  3. The Sabbath was holy only because God had designated it so, and here was God himself telling them He was Lord of the Sabbath.
  • Then they tried to set Jesus up in (V9-11). Healing on the Sabbath was work that was for forbidden.  Jesus replied, “If your sheep fell in a hole would you not get him out?”  Meaning, sometimes we have to do things even if on the Sabbath.  If your child drank a bottle of bleach…would you take him to the emergency room on the Sabbath?
  • There are other examples of Jesus healing on the Sabbath in the Gospels.
    1. John 5:1-18 — The Gospel of John has some additional stories about Jesus’ Sabbath activities, and they reinforce the emphases we have already seen. On the Sabbath, Jesus healed a man who had been an invalid for 38 years. And he told the man, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk” (verse 8). The Jews accused the man of breaking the Sabbath because he was carrying his mat.
      1. I think accusing a man of breaking the Sabbath by carrying his mat his mat is an example from God’s Word of how we can get carried away with (no pun intended) our keeping of the Sabbath.
    2. Jesus risked His life by His activities on the Sabbath.
      1. Jesus never broke the Sabbath, nor did he teach others to break the Sabbath. But neither did he teach against circumcision and sacrifices. He could point out administrative problems, and present himself as the Lord, but it was not yet time to publicly reject any particular law (see John 16:12-13). But the implications are there.  When John describes Jesus as working on the Sabbath, he does not feel compelled to explain that Christians cannot. When Luke says that people are freed on the Sabbath, he does not feel compelled to qualify what he said. Jesus’ example regarding the Sabbath is liberty, not rules.
      2. If Sabbath work actually dishonored God, then the Sabbath would have priority over humans in need and sheep in pits, since correct worship of God is more important than human lives and sheep. If absolute rest were essential to worship, then Sabbath-keepers should let houses burn down, since that would only be a monetary loss, and God’s honor is far more important than our material goods. This indicates that the command to rest on a specific day is a ceremonial matter rather than a moral one. God’s spiritual law does not have any exceptions.

Summary

The only time Paul mentions the Sabbath by name is when he exhorts us not to judge one another concerning the Sabbath days (Colossians 2:16-17).  Respectfully, asking if I keep the Sabbath or I conform to the Sabbath is the wrong question.  I wonder how Jesus would have responded to that?  His answer may have got Him stoned.

The Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around is perhaps the most profound statement in this whole discussion.  God created the Sabbath for man…and God healed on the Sabbath and partook in other activities on the Sabbath.   Jesus’ example regarding the Sabbath is liberty, not rules.  What a blessing the Sabbath is.

There is also no way we can determine the exact day or days (sometimes it is plural) of the Sabbath.  There was no calendar when the Sabbath was created by God.  Even the scriptures seem unclear; calling it day, days and the 9th of the month.  My thinking is the “day” is not so important as is the “intent”.

The Bible says that we are not to cause others to work, not even strangers on the Sabbath.  There is no one…not one who can “keep the Sabbath”.  If this is all there is to the Sabbath.  There has to be more to the intent than a day or whether we do some work.

We see from the Apostles, the early church and Jesus (God) that the Sabbath is going to Church.  We also see in the same breath this is for fellowship, worship and prayer…not forsaking the assembling of one another.

Finally, we have Jesus’ own actions concerning the Sabbath.  Jesus did not (and this is not meant to be a mockery) hide in his house from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.  He worked on the Sabbath and he went to Church on the Sabbath.  He even rebuked the Pharisees over the Sabbath telling them there were more important things like the Temple and people than the Sabbath.  Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath!

The Sabbath is very important to me as a Christian.  We need to just as the scriptures demand; keep the Sabbath Holy.   We need to set aside time for God.  Sundown to sundown…frankly, I don’t think this is enough.   The intent has got to be more important than the day.   I have joked with my Seventh-day Adventist friends saying, “I am a seven day Adventist” meaning, I try to keep every day holy.   However, I am like Paul; I am not judgmental on how anyone cho oses to honor the Sabbath.  If it is sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday…God bless them.  If they do this Wednesday…God bless them.  If it is Sunday morning in Church…God bless them.

I think we should be in worship and in church.  The point is we need to give God or time and that time needs to be holy and hollowed.  After all, He took the time to come down from Heaven, was beaten, tortured and murdered for us.  He deserves our worship; more worship than we can humanly give.   God wants more than our Saturdays.  He wants our Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays too!

Copyright © 2010 Kevin R. Airrington, Airrington Ministries

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

WHAT IF I STUMBLE?!

WHAT IF I STUMBLE?!

Rev. Kevin Airrington
April 2, 2017

Back in 1995, one of my favorite Christian groups, DC TALK recorded “WHAT IF I STUMBLE?” and although split up now they ARE STILL serving God through their music through the new group Newsboys and Toby Mac on his own.

When this song first came out I assumed that one of the original group- DC Talk was having a difficult time in their walk. But as the years rolled on I realized that they were not singing specifically about one of them but all of us. And, I for one cannot take it lightly.

The lyrics go like this:

“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today
Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips
Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.

What if I stumble
What if I fall?
What if I lose my step
And I make fools of us all?

Will the love continue
When my walk becomes a crawl?”

The Bible tells us that we are the called out. We are the Saints of God…we are the sons of God…we are a peculiar people! We are ambassadors for Christ’s.

2 Corinthians 5:20, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

What if I stumble? What if I stumble and make fools of all of you? What if you stumble and make fools of me and all the called out for Christ?

As ambassadors of Christ, we are examples of His. To be a Christian literally means to be Christ-like. What if I stumble and make a fool of Jesus? What if you stumble and make fool of Jesus? “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians…” I hate to admit juts how powerful that statement is! The sad truth is it is true.

I knew a guy named Tommy. He was from the Bronx, NY. He was an admitted atheist. One day he puts a video up on youtube and asks the questions, “What is the difference between me, an atheist and you so called Christians?” A Christian could not have done a better job…Tommy goes on:

I smoke…many Christians smoke…
I drink…many Christians drink…
I cuss and swear…many Christians cuss and swear…
I look at porn…many Christians look at porn…
I lie….many Christians lie…

“What is the difference between me, an atheist and you so called Christians?” “The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians…who acknowledge Jesus with their lips…Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle”

WOW! What does an unbelieving world see when they look at you? What do they see when they look at me?

I had a lot of respect for Tommy. And I think he had a lot of respect for me too. No, I was not perfect, but he could see that I would not…could not comp[romise.

The song continues…

“Father please forgive me
For I cannot compose
The fear that lives within me
Or the rate at which it grows
Is this one for the people
Is this one for the Lord?”

Isaiah 27:5, “Or let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me

Take hold of the strength of Christ, so that He may make peace with you…it’s not too late.

“I hear You whispering my name
(You say)
My love for You will never change
(Never change)”

Jesus loves you and His love will never change. If we stumble we have an advocate with the Father. Our Testimony can be as powerful as the Word of God or as weak as a helpless turtle on his back. It’s up to us…

1 John 2:1, “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:15, “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba [daddy], Father.

That’s good news. I don’t want to stumble…I don’t want to fall…I do not want to make fools of you all and I definitely do not want to make a fool of Jesus Christ. But if I do…I have an advocate with the Father, whereby I cry Abba!

Copyright © 1989 - 2017 AIRRINGTON MINISTRIES | www.airrington.com |All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2017 airrington.com. All Rights Reserved.  WordPress Plugin

Website is Protected By Using The WP Site Protector Plugin From : ExattoSoft.com