End Times and Current Events
March 28, 2024, 06:48:59 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Anyone seen this website?

Shoutbox
March 27, 2024, 12:55:24 pm Mark says: Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  When Hamas spokesman Abu Ubaida began a speech marking the 100th day of the war in Gaza, one confounding yet eye-opening proclamation escaped the headlines. Listing the motives for the Palestinian militant group's Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, he accused Jews of "bringing red cows" to the Holy Land.
December 31, 2022, 10:08:58 am NilsFor1611 says: blessings
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Anyone seen this website?  (Read 459 times)
akfools
Guest
« on: October 20, 2011, 08:00:05 pm »

The site is  True Church.info,  The guys name is Darwin Fish. He came out of John MacArthur's church (Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California). He rightfully labels MacArthur a heretic and exposes other misc. false religions and teachers.

http://www.atruechurch.info/mischome.html

This is his false teachers page:
http://www.atruechurch.info/falseteachershome.html

He exposes LetUsReasonMinistries:
http://www.atruechurch.info/letusreason.html


A guy from John MacArthurs multi million dollar ministry put out a website on Darwin after he exposed their church.
http://www.atruecult.com/dfishfaq.htm

 David Stewart  and CARM ministries have a warnings that he is dangerous.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/darwin_fish.htm
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 07:17:51 am by Jim » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

akfools
Guest
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2011, 08:26:57 pm »

This is what he says about KJV Only.
http://www.atruechurch.info/kjv.html
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 08:37:52 pm by akfools » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2011, 10:56:50 pm »

I saw this web site many months ago - some on this list I have no idea how this guy came up with.

Charles Spurgeon was never a false teacher, and neither is Jack Chick(the Chick Tracts guy). Vernon McGee?? EARLY CHURCH FATHERS?? Wow...if our early church fathers were false teachers, then we might as well throw out the entire New Testament except maybe the first 4 gospels.

For the record, I don't put anyone up on a pedestial b/c certainly noone is perfect. I've read one of McGee's books, and he certainly wasn't perfect, but bore good fruit nonetheless. Ditto Spurgeon, your typical follow the old ways, fire and brimstone preacher.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2011, 11:00:44 pm »

This is what he says about KJV Only.
http://www.atruechurch.info/kjv.html

Only gleamed through this, but wow...this man has no discernment regarding the KJV and the other perverted versions.

This is just my opinion, but it seems like he has a bone to pick with whoever more than doing the ministry of defending the faith.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2011, 11:06:34 pm »

Quote
In Matthew 7:1-2 Christ said,

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (KJV)

Typically, KJV advocates acclaim the original 1611 KJV. And, they impugn all other English translations, including the NKJV. In their rejection of the NKJV, their folly is more easily manifested.

Oh boy...here we go again with someone twisting this very verse for the upteenth time.

1) This judge not...verse is talking about HYPOCRITICAL judgement.

2) Has this man even READ the NKJV??

It seems like every time unfruitful works of darkness gets exposed, the PC Churchianity crowd will almost immediately twist this passage to silence everyone.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 05:31:46 am by Dok » Report Spam   Logged
akfools
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2011, 02:36:26 am »

The KJV Controversy

(an Overview)

Thou shalt not revile the Gods, . . . . (Exodus 22:28, 1611 KJV)1

I. Introduction

The KJV controversy is a massive subject, in which, literally thousands of arguments may be used by advocates of the KJV translation to "prove" their point. D. A. Waite, in his book, Defending The King James Bible (copyright 1992), has at the end of his book (on pages 284-307) a list of "OVER 900 TITLES DEFENDING THE KING JAMES BIBLE" (including a "suggested gift" for each title). The reason this arsenal of "evidence" exists is because, not only are they arguing over the entire text of Scripture, that is, any word(s) or verse that may not have been translated the way they believe they should have been, but they are also contending over several different English translations and different Greek manuscripts. This provides for them an enormous amount of words to contend over. They are among those who are "doting about questions and strifes of words" (1 Timothy 6:4 KJV; NKJV "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words").

Typically, the KJV is set up as the standard, and therefore, anything that doesn't line up with the KJV is consequently erroneous. Peter S. Ruckman (Bible Baptist Bookstore, P. O. Box 7135, Pensacola, FL 32514, ph. # 904-477-8812), who is on the far right of this controversy, wrote in his booklet entitled About the "New" King James Bible (copyright 1983, revised 1987),

    Now the New "King James" Bible, like every English translation since 1884, had to compare itself with the original Authorized Version of 1611, for this is the STANDARD that God set up whereby to judge all translations. (p. 15, italics and capitals in the original)

Contrary to Ruckman's claim (which is a lie), God sets up no such standard. Scripture (Hebrews 4:12-13) sets no such standard. Yet, men do (Colossians 2:8), and they judge according to their own measure.

In Matthew 7:1-2 Christ said,

    Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (KJV)

Typically, KJV advocates acclaim the original 1611 KJV. And, they impugn all other English translations, including the NKJV. In their rejection of the NKJV, their folly is more easily manifested.

Not only are verse comparisons given, which are dealt with, in part, below, but fault is found by some (e.g. Terry Watkins, New King James Counterfeit, tract) based on the triquetra symbol (found on many, not all, NKJV Bibles) claiming that this symbol is a Satanic symbol. Using this same kind of measure (Matthew 7:1-2), these KJV advocates should reject their own 1611 KJV.

In the 1611 KJV there are two Suns each having a face on the very front cover, and on the first page of the New Testament. Since when does the Sun have a face? Is not this imagery consistent with the worship of the Sun? Would this not then be a Satanic idolatrous symbol or picture?

Also, following Catholic tradition (which is demonic, 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Colossians 2:8), the 1611 KJV has an Easter calendar (28 pages from the page with "To The Most High and Mightie Prince, Iames . . ."). In the pages following this calendar, there are several "Holy days" listed, some of which include Christmas (a Catholic/pagan "Holy day"), different saints, "Epiphinie," "the purification of the blessed Virgin," and "the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin." Five pages from the Easter Calendar, at the bottom of the page are two naked Cupid (Roman god of love) looking beings with wings. Also, at the beginning of the New Testament, at the bottom of the pictorial page there is a Cupid looking head with wings. Using the same kind of measure some use, the 1611 KJV should also be rejected.

In fact, the 1611 KJV is far worse, because between the Old and New Testaments lies (in more ways than one) the Apocrypha. This group of books is filled with false doctrine contradicting much of what is taught in the Old and New Testament (Please see our report on the Apocrypha). Right smack in the middle of the 1611 KJV is a group of books that teach a great deal of false doctrine (some of which are clearly "destructive heresies", 2 Peter 2:1). KJV advocates, who praise the original 1611 KJV Bible (with its Apocryphal writings) and condemn the NKJV because of its triquetra symbol, are hypocrites, especially when they set the 1611 KJV up as the standard.

II. Verse Comparisons

Another sample of faulty measuring (Matthew 7:2) can be seen in some of the examples KJV advocates give as they compare the KJV with the NKJV. Now, at times, the KJV does do a better job at giving a more literal translation (e.g. "****eth against the wall" 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8; "eat their own dung and drink their own ****" 2 Kings 18:27; Isaiah 36:12; "effeminate" 1 Corinthians 6:9). But, the NKJV also has its share of more literal translations. For example, in John 4:24 the KJV reads, "God is a Spirit." The NKJV reads, "God is Spirit." Since there is no indefinite article ("a") in the Greek, and there is no reason to insert it, the NKJV is more literal (following the Greek in a more exacting way). Likewise, in 1 John 3:16 the KJV reads, "love of God." The NKJV reads, "love." The "of God" is not in the Greek. Moreover, in several passages (Luke 20:16; Romans 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13: 9:14; 11:1, 11; 1 Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14) the KJV translates the Greek phrase "mh genoito" as "God forbid!" The Greek word for "God" is not even there.2 The first word (mh) means "no". The second Greek word (genoito) means "may be" (in this context). The NKJV translates it, "Certainly not!" [The NASV translates this, "May it never be!"] Both the KJV and the NKJV have their share of "better translations" when compared one with the other.

A. Terry Watkins (Dial-The-Truth Ministries, 5990 Willow Ridge Road, Pinson, AL 35126, ph. # 205-680-9206)

But, some comparisons fall before the KJV itself when compared to itself. For example, Terry Watkins gives on his web site (www.av1611.org; and in tract form) under the title, "The New King James Counterfeit" several verse comparisons comparing the KJV with the NKJV (and other translations). One comparison reads as follows:

    In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? [Here lies an "evil surmising," 1 Timothy 6:4 KJV; NKJV "evil suspicion"] Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible! (emphasis in original)

The Greek word in question here is σπούδασον (spoudason). Please note every other time the KJV translates this word. In Galatians 2:10 it's "forward," Ephesians 4:3 "Endeavoring," 1 Thessalonians 2:17 "endeavored," 2 Timothy 4:9 & 21 "diligence," Titus 3:12 "be diligent," Hebrews 4:11 "labor," 2 Peter 1:10 "diligence," 1:15 "endeavor," 3:14 "be diligent." The KJV itself testifies that the word can be translated exactly as the NKJV translates it in 2 Timothy 2:15 ("Be diligent"). In fact, nowhere else does the KJV translate this word "study." It is only translated "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15.

Another faulty measure (Matthew 7:2) by Terry Watkins can be found in his contention over the word "virtue."

    That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

The Greek word in question here is δύναμιν (dunamin). The KJV translates this same word as "power" 71 times (e.g. Luke 5:17; 24:49; Acts 4:7)! The KJV itself testifies that it can well be translated "power."

Another example given by Terry Watkins is that Revelation 2:13 says "Satan's seat" in the KJV, but the NKJV (and NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) reads, "Satan's throne." Here again, the KJV bears witness that this is a legitimate translation. The KJV translates the same Greek word, θρονος (thronos), as "throne" 50 times (e.g. Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; Colossians 1:16; Revelation 1:4; 3:21; 4:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10; 20:4; etc.)!

Another argument used by Watkins is that the NKJV [and NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV] translates Acts 4:27 & 30 as "holy servant" (speaking of Christ) rather than "holy child" (KJV). Again, the KJV testifies that this is a legitimate translation in Matthew 8:6, 8, 13; 14:2; Luke 1:54, 69; 7:7; 12:45; 15:26 in which the same Greek word, παις (pais), is translated "servant." In fact, in Matthew 12:18 it is translated "servant" and it is speaking of Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20 is also cited by Watkins, in that, the KJV gives the translation "science" where as the NKJV [and NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV] gives "knowledge." Yet, the KJV translates the same Greek word, γνωσις (gnôsis), as "knowledge" 28 times (e.g. Colossians 2:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Peter 1:5, 6; 3:18) never again translating it "science." Once more, the KJV testifies that the NKJV translation is quite appropriate.

B. Mr. D. A. Waite (The Bible For Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108; ph. # 609-854-4452)

A few really pitiful examples of verse comparisons from a formidable KJV advocate can be found in D. A. Waite's book entitled, Defending The King James Bible (copyright 1992). On page 150-151 Waite claims the NIV denies a literal fire in hell.

    The Denial of Literal Fire in Hell.

    "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:44) "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:46)

    . . . both of these verses are omitted in their entirety. Both verses teach clearly that hell is a place of unquenchable, literal fire. This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology. (bold in original)

It is true that the NIV omits these two verses, because it follows here the Greek texts B and Aleph. But, it is not true (i.e. it is a lie) that the NIV "denies a literal fire in hell." In this very same context, in Mark 9:48 the NIV reads, "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."

On page 157 and 158 of this same book, under the subtitle "The Denial of Redemption by Divinely Provided Blood" Waite writes,

    But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)

    Greek Texts: -B/ALEPH

    English Versions: (-3) -NIV, -NASV, -NB

    The italicized portion is ELIMINATED in the Greek texts and English versions specified above. Since Christian Science and liberals make a distinction (as in early church times) between the human "Jesus" and the Divine "Christ," the cleansing "Blood" might be considered as merely human blood rather than having its source in God Himself. It's the "Blood of Jesus Christ" not merely the "blood of Jesus" that "cleanseth us from all sin"! This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology. (bold in original)

It appears that the Greek texts and English translations cited here are deficient in this case, but to say what Waite says beyond this is foolishness and using a measure the Scriptures do not use. Hebrews 10:19 reads, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," (KJV). There is no "Christ" mentioned in this verse! To use the same measure Waite uses (Matthew 7:2), in Hebrews 10:19 God Himself is leaving room for the error of "Christian Science and liberals!"

Also on page 157-158 under the subtitle, "The Denial of Salvation and Redemption Only in Christ," Waite writes,

    "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life." (John 6:47)

    Greek Texts: -B/ALEPH

    English Versions: (-3) -NIV, -NASV, -NKJV-FN

    The italicized portion is ELIMINATED in the Greek texts and English versions specified above. This is, perhaps, one of the CLEAREST theological errors in these three versions. To make salvation only a matter of "believing" rather than solely, as Christ said in this verse, "believing on Me," is truly "ANOTHER GOSPEL"! If you were trying to lead someone to Christ with the NIV or NASV, using this verse, they could "believe" in anything and still have "everlasting life" --whether in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny, in the Tooth Fairy, in Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, or in any of the false world religions! This is SERIOUS THEOLOGICAL PERVERSION! This is certainly a matter of doctrine and theology. (bold in original, FN = footnote)

The above is a graphic example of a "perverse disputing" (1 Timothy 6:5 KJV; NKJV "useless wrangling"). To use the same measure (Matthew 7:2) Waite uses here, then he must also accuse God for the same error ("serious theological perversion" and "another gospel"), because in the gospel of Mark Christ says (without saying "on Me"), "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16 KJV)

C. How about the "Easter" passage in Acts 12:4?

In Acts 12:4 the KJV translates the Greek word πασχα (pasca) as "Easter." Πασχα (pasca) is the Greek word for "Passover." The KJV bears witness to this fact 28 times (e.g. Matthew 26:2; John 2:13; Hebrews 11:28; etc.). In fact, the only time the KJV translates this word "Easter" is in Acts 12:4.

Some argue that the holiday mentioned was pagan in this context, thus we have "Easter" (e.g. www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html). The problem is, the text (Scripture) says no such thing, and in fact, Acts 12:3, the verse just prior to Acts 12:4, declares plainly that it was during "the days of unleavened bread." This identifies the time as the time of the Passover. The days of unleavened bread and the Passover go hand in hand, as Luke 22:1 exemplifies.

    Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover. (see also, Exodus 23:15; 34:18; Leviticus 23:5-6; Numbers 28:16-17; 2 Chronicles 30:21; 35:17; Ezra 6:22; Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7; 1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

Josephus, the Jewish historian, likewise testifies to this fact.

    As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the Passover, (The Works of Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, book 14, chapter 2, section 1)

    Now, upon the approach of that feast of unleavened bread which the law of their fathers had appointed for the Jews at this time, which feast is called the Passover, (The Works of Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, book 17, chapter 9, section 3)

The reason for the KJV translation of "Easter" may be because of the later Catholic usage of the Greek word pasca for the "Christian" Easter festival.

D. The 1611 KJV Compared To The Present KJV

It might be expected that the present KJV would have, perhaps, more modern English than the 1611 KJV, since the 1611 is older. On the contrary, at least in the use of the term "ye" or "you," the 1611 is more contemporary. In John 18:29; 1 Corinthians 7:5, 35; 14:8; 2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:1; Galatians 3:10; and 1 John 2:13, the 1611 KJV uses the common "you" whereas the present day KJV uses "ye."

In addition, in the New Testament alone, the KJV of today does not follow the 1611 several times over. For example, in Matthew 6:3 the present KJV has "hand" where there is no "hand" in the 1611. In Acts 5:34 the 1611 has "the" where there is no "the" in the present KJV. In Acts 8:32 the 1611 has "the shearer," where the present KJV has "his shearer." In Acts 15:23 the present KJV has "they" where the 1611 has no "they." In 2 Corinthians 5:1 the 1611 has "hand," singular, while the present KJV has "hands," plural. In 2 Corinthians 11:26 the 1611 has "journeying" while the present KJV has "journeys."

Moreover, in the New Testament, in a few instances, in comparison to today's KJV, the 1611 follows more exactly the Greek (the Received Text and other Texts). For example, in Matthew 9:33 the 1611 has the article ("the") in keeping with the Greek, whereas the present KJV does not. In John 16:25 the present KJV adds "but," where the 1611 and the Greek have no "but." In Romans 7:2 the present KJV has "her husband" whereas the 1611 has "the husband" following the Greek. In Ephesians 6:24 the present KJV has "Amen" following the Majority Greek Text whereas the 1611 has no "Amen" following the Received Text, which also agrees, in this case, with the Critical Text. In 1 Timothy 1:4 the present KJV adds "godly" whereas the 1611 has no "godly" in keeping with the Greek. And, in 2 Peter 2:5 the present KJV has "sacrifices," plural, whereas the 1611 has "sacrifice," singular, in keeping with the Greek.

Although the 1611 KJV is acclaimed as the "STANDARD" (e.g. Ruckman), the 1611, several times over, does not follow the Greek Text (Received Text and other Texts) as closely as the present KJV. For example, in Matthew 16:16 the 1611 leaves out the definite article, whereas the present KJV follows the Greek leaving it in with "the Christ." In Mark 5:6 the 1611 translates the Greek word εδραμε (edrame) as "came" whereas the present KJV translates it more literally "ran." In Mark 10:18 the 1611 reads, "no man good," whereas the present KJV more literally reads, "none good." There is no "man" in the Greek. In Luke 1:3; 2 Timothy 4:8; and 2 Peter 2:1 the present KJV translates the Greek word "all" where the 1611 leaves it out. In John 7:16 the 1611 likewise leaves out "and said," where the present KJV includes a translation of these two Greek words, και ειπεν (kai eipen). In John 15:20 the 1611 has "the Lord" where the present KJV has "his Lord" in keeping with the Greek. In 2 Timothy 2:19 the 1611 has "the seal" where the present KJV has the demonstrative "this seal" which follows the Greek more literally. In 1 John 3:22 the 1611 has the singular "commandment" whereas the present KJV has the plural "commandments" in keeping with the Greek. In Acts 10:9 the 1611 translates the Greek word δωμα (doma) as "house" where the present KJV translates it more literally as "housetop." Elsewhere, the 1611 translates this same Greek word as "house top" or "house tops," and never again as house (Matthew 10:27; 24:17; Mark 13:15; Luke 5:19; 12:3; 17:31).

In 1 Corinthians 12:28 the 1611 has "helpes in governmets" where the present KJV follows the Greek accusative with "helps, governments." In 1 Corinthians 15:6 (printed as verse 5) the 1611 has "And that" where the present KJV has more literally "After that." Yet, the 1611 translates this same Greek word, επειτα (epeita), as "After" in verse 7 of the same chapter.

In 1 Corinthians 8:12; 9:6 (twice); and 2 Peter 2:6 (Received Text) the 1611 leaves out the word "also" because it does not translate the Greek word και (kai) whereas the present KJV follows the Greek and includes "also" in the translation. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 9:5, at the end of the verse, and in Revelation 5:13 (twice) the 1611 is lacking the word "and" because it does not translate the Greek word και (kai). The present KJV includes "and" in these passages as it follows the Greek in a more exacting way. Also, this same kind of thing is found in Jude 25 where the 1611 again does not translate the Greek word και (kai), therefore there is no "both" where the present KJV has "both" in its translation of και (kai). [Depending on the context, the Greek word και (kai) can be translated as "also," "and," or "both."]

The worst omissions found in the 1611 New Testament can be found in 2 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Timothy 4:13; and 1 John 5:12. In 2 Corinthians 11:32 the 1611 does not translate the Greek word δαμασκηνων (damaskênôn), thus leaving out the phrase "of the Damascenes," whereas the present KJV follows the Greek and includes these words. In 2 Timothy 4:13 the 1611 does not translate the Greek words και τα βιβλια (kai ta biblia), thus leaving out the phrase, "and the books," whereas the present KJV follows the Greek and translates these words. And, finally, in 1 John 5:12 the 1611 does not translate tou qeou (tou theou), thus leaving out the phrase "of God," whereas the present KJV follows the Greek and includes these words.

In light of the above, the KJV advocates, if they are to be consistant, ought to reject either their own KJV Bibles or the 1611.

III. Manuscripts and Translations

A main part of this controversy involves "textual criticism" which is an effort in establishing a proper view of discerning between variant readings among the many Greek manuscripts (New Testament books and passages) that are available. There are three main camps in this field, and it is in no way an exacting science. The three main camps are the Critical Text approach (Westcott and Hort), the Received Text (Textus Receptus) approach, which KJV advocates acclaim, and the Majority Text approach (Hodges and Farstad).

The Critical Text approach places much weight on two main manuscripts that they espouse to be supposedly "older", and there are several differently reasoned out arguments for picking any particular passage or reading in any particular situation. Most modern English translations (e.g. NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) follow the Critical Text approach (at least, in general). The Received Text approach places authority on the Greek text from which the KJV (and NKJV) was translated, and at least in part, it is argued that time itself bears witness that this is the text to follow; because it was used by so many for so long (about 400 years). The Majority Text approach simply places authority on the text that has the most Greek manuscripts that read exactly the same for that particular passage. From what we have seen, we believe this is the safest approach. Yet, when it comes to contending over such things, we have not seen that Scripture supports such a contention (at least, in perhaps, the more questionable passages).

Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; and Revelation 22:18-19 all strongly imply that someone could add to or take away from God's word. Yet, at the same time, the Lord maintains that He will (and does) preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:152, 160; Isaiah 30:8-9; 40:6-8; Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:33; 1 Peter 1:23). Christ goes so far as to say,

    Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:18 KJV)

There may be questions in the mind of man regarding a particular passage whether or not a word, phrase, or verse should be regarded as Scripture (when considering the different manuscripts available), but the truth of the matter is, this does not change the fact that God has preserved His Word. It is man's responsibility to fear God (Proverbs 2:1-12; 9:10; Job 28:28) and attempt to discern which passage is correct.

KJV advocates maintain they have this all figured out, because they set the KJV up as the standard. Therefore, the Greek manuscripts that the KJV followed (The Received Text)3 and the subsequent translation thereof, sets an exacting standard down to the very last word. This kind of thing would be nice if Scripture itself bore out such a standard, but the truth is, it does not.

IV. Scripture's Standard?

The Word of God bears witness to a "not-so-exacting" standard when it comes to either following the original language, or "exactness" in translation. For example, Luke records Jesus reading a passage out of Isaiah that does not exactly follow what we find in the Hebrew text.

    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19 KJV)

Now, compare this with the Old Testament passage in Isaiah.

    The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, (Isaiah 61:1-2a KJV)

As can be seen, the wording is not the same. Luke adds "recovering of sight to the blind." This phrase is not in the Hebrew, but it is in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (called the Septuagint, abbreviated LXX). Yet, this passage in Luke does not agree totally with the Greek (LXX) either. The phrase "to set at liberty them that are bruised" does not exist in the LXX. Moreover, instead of the phrase "to set at liberty them that are bruised," the Hebrew has, "the opening of the prison to them that are bound." The wording is not the same! So, Luke 4:18-19 follows neither the Hebrew nor the Greek in any kind of an exacting way.

If you believe the Word of God, you know that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV), and therefore, what Luke recorded was accurate and correct. Yet, both the Hebrew and Greek texts differ from what Luke records. In fact, Luke does not have "God" at the beginning of the passage, and adds an entire phrase that is not even found in the Hebrew, but is in the Greek. So, we have differences in the two passages. Yet, despite these differences, the words in Isaiah and in Luke are all the inerrant Words of God. This may blow the brain circuits of some, but nonetheless, this is what is found in holy writ.

Another example of variance can be found in Luke 3:4-6.

    As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. (KJV)

Now compare this with the passage in Isaiah (Esaias, KJV).

    The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: (Isaiah 40:3-5 KJV)

As can be seen, the wording is not the same. Luke follows the Septuagint closer than the Hebrew with "make his paths straight" ("make straight the paths of our God" LXX), as opposed to "make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (the Hebrew), and with "valley shall be filled" (LXX), as opposed to "valley shall be exalted" (the Hebrew). Luke also has "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" which is consistent with the Greek (LXX), whereas the Hebrew reads, "all flesh shall see it together." Yet, when the LXX is compared with the Greek in Luke, it can be seen that Luke 3:4-6 does not follow the LXX exactly either. So, Luke again, concurs with neither the Hebrew or the Greek (LXX) in every word. And, unlike Luke 4:18-19 where Luke adds a phrase that is in the LXX but not in the Hebrew, here Luke completely leaves out "the glory of the Lord shall be revealed" which is found in both the Greek and Hebrew! As can be seen, there is no exacting standard in quoting the Old Testament!

Another example can be found in Acts 8:32-33.

    The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. (KJV)

Compare this with the passage in Isaiah (which has been translated from the Hebrew text).

    he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: (Isaiah 53:7-8 KJV)

Note Acts records, "In his humiliation his judgment was taken away," whereas we have recorded in Isaiah, "He was taken from prison and from judgment." In this phrase, Acts follows the LXX and not the Hebrew. In fact, the wording in Acts is very nearly identical with the LXX. Yet, even in this, Acts does not follow the LXX word for word. Acts adds two to four Greek words (depending on the Greek manuscript) that are non-existent in the LXX (αυτον [auton], αυτου [autou] 2x, and δε [de], all four are in the Majority and Received Texts). Therefore, as we saw in Luke, Acts 8:32-33 is not completely consistent (i.e. word for word) with either the Hebrew or the Greek (LXX).

Finally, the above three examples (Luke 4:18-19, Luke 3:4-6, and Acts 8:32-33) are only three of many other examples in which variation can be found when comparing New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. The above three are the clearest examples, because in these passages, the book is identified, and it is clearly referring to a specific written passage.

Other examples could be given, but they may not be so specifically and clearly identifiable (in the text itself) with a particular passage. Typically, with a small amount of research (perhaps simply a cross reference) the Old Testament passage can be found. And, when it is, it very often does not follow the Old Testament passage word for word. This could be due to the same reason the above three examples manifest variations (a reason God knows, and we do not). Or, it could be because the New Testament author simply chose not to quote the entire passage. Or, it could be that the quote is not meant to be a word for word exact quote. Or, it could be because the New Testament author is quoting something verbally spoken, similar to what is written, but nonetheless spoken (not written), therefore, the wording may not be exactly the same.

In fact, the New Testament does quote "Old Testament" statements of which we have no written record (e.g. Matthew 2:23; Matthew 27:9-10). Nevertheless, for whatever reason, the New Testament provides many statements that do not match verbatim Old Testament passages (e.g. Matthew 2:6/Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:18/Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 3:3/Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 4:4/Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 12:18/Isaiah 42:1-4; Matthew 13:14-15/Isaiah 6:9-10; Matthew 13:35/Psalm 78:2; Matthew 15:8-9/Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 21:5/Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 26:31/Zechariah 13:7; Romans 9:27-28/Isaiah 10:22-23; Romans 9:29/Isaiah 1:9; Romans 11:9-10/Psalm 69:22-23; 1 Corinthians 14:21/Isaiah 28:11-12; etc.). This is not to say that the New Testament does not also exemplify a word for word quotation. It does (e.g. Matthew 2:15/Hosea 11:1; Matthew 27:35/Psalm 22:18; Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34/Psalm 22:1; Hebrews 1:5/Psalm 2:7; etc.). But, much of the time, the wording is not identical to what is found in the Hebrew Old Testament.

V. Conclusion

As the above illustrates, Scripture itself is not so exacting when it comes to quoting, or perhaps translating, Scripture. Even when it comes to having the same wording that exists in either the Hebrew or the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), even in this, there is a lack of word for word sameness. The kind of stringent exactness that KJV advocates place upon other translations, and the standard of one translation above all, is a standard unparalleled in the Word of God.

So, how is this variance properly understood? First of all, anyone familiar with linguistics, or who knows more than one language, should understand that translation (going from one language to another) is not an exacting science. Secondly, if and when there is a question, it is our responsibility to cry out for wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 2:1-7; James 1:5) that we might discern and find the answer to the question at hand. In specific, the Lord does not give an answer to this present dilemma. So, does this mean we have no stronghold? No, "In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence" (Proverbs 14:26 KJV; 18:10). We can stand on the solid Rock (Matthew 7:24-25; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:8; Psalm 18:2; 28:1; 62:2; 71:3; 92:15) of the Word of God that we do know.

When it comes to variant manuscripts, for the large majority of the Scriptures, there is no variant reading whatsoever in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Thus, most of the time, no question arises. If and when there is a question at hand, it can be studied out (Proverbs 2, even if you do not know the original languages) and usually be safely discerned. When it comes to a particular translation, the safest approach (that we have seen) is to find a translation that follows a more word for word literal bent toward translating (like the KJV, NKJV, NASV) as opposed to a concept to concept translation approach (like the NIV "dynamic equivalence", or the NLT). A more literal approach keeps the interpretation of the translators down to a minimum. Usually, the preface of a particular version reveals the translation theory behind it.

We do not contend over translations, but our fellowship has chosen to use the NKJV (and KJV) for a few reasons. First, because they use a "complete equivalence" approach to translation. This is a more literal approach. Secondly, the NKJV follows the Received Text which agrees with the Majority of Greek manuscripts most of the time. Thirdly, the NKJV uses modern English, not language that is archaic, as the KJV.

In conclusion, the above may be quite difficult for some to accept, because, like Scripture, it does not set in cement a solid standard in dealing with this issue. Indeed, God has preserved His Word. But, what that means to some, is not what God means in His truth. Certainly, there may be some ambiguity regarding variant manuscripts, and even some ambiguity regarding some particular translation, but the bottom line to this whole issue is found in Psalm 119:89. "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (KJV). Down here, "we know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9).

Endnotes:

1. In the Hebrew text this is found in Exodus 22:27, and for "Thou shalt not revile the Gods" (1611 KJV, Exodus 22:28) it reads, אֱלהִים לא תְקַלֵּל ('elohiym lo' teqallâl). For more on the Gods, see He Is Holy Gods.

Also, elsewhere the 1611 translates lower case "gods," e.g. in Genesis 31:30, 32; 35:2, 4; Exodus 12:12; etc., but in Exodus 22:27 they translate "Gods" with a capital "G," as they do also in Genesis 3:5; 1 Samuel 4:8 [current KJV also]; Daniel 4:8-9, 18; which all refer to the true Gods.

1611 also has "God" [capital "G"] for a god other than the true God. This can be found in Deuteronomy 3:24 [current KJV also]; 32:12; Psalm 81:9 [2x]; Isaiah 44:10, 15, 17 [2x]; Daniel 4:8 [compare to Daniel 1:2]; 11:38 ["a God whome his fathers knew not"]; Habakkuk 1:11; Malachi 2:11; Acts 7:43; 2 Corinthians 4:4 ["God of this world"]; Philippians 3:19 [current].)

2. KJV likewise adds "God" in the phrase "God save the king" in 1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16; and "God save king Adonijah" in 1 Kings 1:25. The word for God is not there. What is there is הַמֶּלֶךְ יְחִי (yechiy hamelekh), more literally, "May the king live."

3. The KJV does not actually follow the Received Text in Luke 23:34 on the word "lots." It follows the Critical Text. The Received Text has the singular "lot" (κληρον [klêron]). The Critical Text has the plural "lots" (κληρους [klêrous]). The KJV translates "lots."

Likewise, neither the KJV nor the NKJV follow the Received Text in Luke 24:19. Both translate "of Nazareth" which is what the Critical Text reads, τοῦ Ναζαρηνοῦ (tou Nazarênou). The Received Text reads, "the Nazarene," τοῦ Ναζωραίου (tou Nazôraiou).

Likewise, the NKJV does not follow the Received Text in 2 John 7. The NKJV reads, "have gone out," which follows the Critical Text εξηλθον (exêlthon), more literally, "went out." The Received Text has εισηλθον (eisêlthon) "came into" (KJV "are entered into").
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 05:33:10 am by Dok » Report Spam   Logged
Believer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 358


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2011, 04:15:41 am »

I have no problem with anyone who prefers the KJV, but I do when they then 'judge' the salvation of other people by it. 
Report Spam   Logged
akfools
Guest
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2011, 08:33:51 pm »

Darwin Fish (the heretic that put up this website) is a devil

 

From: isaiah*****@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 11:21 AM
To: Scott Johnson
Subject: Re: another question

 

Dear Dr. Johnson,

You gave the following link:

Click to read Darwin Fish Exposed...Again

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/issuesoflife/musteverythingbespelledout.htm

 

“From: Darwin
To: holyfire43@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: afalse teachers or accurate??

They reject Luke 16:19-31 (www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/lazarus.htm).”

"He is right about that. We do reject Luke 16:19-31, with a comprehensive explanation why. For this, he believes we are false teachers. Understandable, so far."

 

This link reveals they do not believe Luke 16:19-31 is the Word of God, and they also do not believe in eternal torment in the lake of fire. Do you agree?


Sincerely,
Ann

----------------------------------
From: Scott Johnson [mailto:drjohnson@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 3:30 PM
To: 'isaiah******@comcast.net'
Subject: RE: another question

Oh course I don't agree with this unbiblical garbage. Darwin fancies himself as God deciding what words should stay and go in the Word of God. Very dangerous, see:

Rev 22:18 ¶ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19   And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. =
Rev 22:20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
--------------------------------------------
From: "Scott Johnson" <drjohnson@ix.netcom.com>
To: isaiah******@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2011 11:28:16 PM
Subject: www.atruechurch.info Darwin Fish Warning

This guy is a pride filled, deluded cult leader.  I found the the following:

Darwin Fish Claims He Knows of No Pastor Who is "in the Truth" Other Than Himself

Mr. Fish is correct, because he has started a unique demonic cult based upon his own crazy beliefs.

No, I do not believe I am the only one on the planet who knows the truth (Jeremiah 35:19; Romans 11:5). God has his own, however many or few, wherever He may have them (e.g. 1 Kings 19:10, 18). Yet, I do not know, as of this date, any other pastor that is in the truth. Nor have I seen any in history other than those recorded in Scripture.

SOURCE: http://www.atruechurch.info/darwin.html

Must Everything Be Spelled Out in the Bible?

On his web site (www.atruechurch.info), Darwin Fish states that he does not know of any true ministers of God, other than himself. After we inquired of him regarding our preaching, he unsubscribed without comment from The Issues of Life. Here is Victor's response:

Darwin, we have taken you off the mailing list for The Issues of Life. In reading portions of your site, while some of what you say is true, you also teach much error. It is no surprise that you have no respect for what we have to say, which is the truth. After all, for one example of several, you say that it is fine for the true believer to masturbate, to satisfy his fleshly lusts, particularly if he or she is not married. I can agree with many of your arguments on that subject, and your objections to several arguments against **** are valid. However, on the whole, you are wrong.

The Bible addresses far more than you have allowed.

I suppose that in your perspective, it might be possible or appropriate that Jesus masturbated, seeing He took upon Himself the form of a man, along with man's weaknesses, and was without wife. If it is fine for Darwin, it must be fine for Jesus, right? "Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness?" (Romans 6:16)

"The Bible does not say one cannot or should not masturbate," you write. The Bible does not say one cannot sniff **** or take crystal meth or read **** either. The Bible does not say one cannot smoke or sell **** movies. The Bible does not say many things directly, but for those who have a heart for truth and righteousness, it says and addresses far more than you have allowed. Is it possible that you are not as enlightened as you judge yourself to be?

"To the pure, all things are pure," so, "To the pure-minded," you say, "**** is therefore pure." With that logic, defecating on one's own doorstep for a welcome mat is pure (which is exactly what you do in your "Contact Us" qualification). "After all," Darwin Fish says, "the Bible does not say you cannot or ought not to do it. It says that all things are pure, and only legalistic Pharisees, who bind heavy burdens, laying down laws not specifically mentioned in Scripture, would add to the Word of God."

As judge of those who do or don't believe, you have concluded there to be no true pastor but you. Is it because they don't see the "proper release of sexual energies" as do you? You get rather magnanimous, though, qualifying your expressed convictions with, "Not that they have not and do not exist, but I am not familiar with any. But, wherever they may be, they would be in the same way as I am, believing the same things (i.e. God's Word)...."

Do you have the correct understanding of God's Word? Says who? Darwin Fish? And who is Darwin Fish? I read your testimony and find it is all about Darwin and his arch foe, John MacArthur, and other false teachers. You are hurt and bitter. You do not know for sure whether you are saved or not. Let me tell you this - if one is born again, he or she knows it.

Did Jesus teach such things and demand such of others?

In "Contact Us," we see "The Manifesto of Judgmental Arrogance." You sit there as God, demanding that we trust you unconditionally to use whatever we say or write. One can only tremble and pray that when entering the throne room, Darwin the Great will hold out the scepter. Those wishing to correspond with you are not granted some assurance or commitment from you, which any reasonable, balanced, or righteous, believing, working relationship demands. Did Jesus teach such things and demand such of others? There is no record of even a suggestion of that kind of conduct, attitude, or spirit on His part, yet you presume to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

You are another confused and hurting man among many, but who "eats his own." You may print this letter, in full, anywhere you please. Post it in your "true church." We may print it for you, Lord willing. This letter is to let you know in no uncertain terms that you blaspheme the Son of God, even in ways I have not mentioned. Play your guitar, put your picture in lights, glorify Darwin Fish, and continue in your bitterness and presumption in the Name of Jesus Christ, but know this - you will not, and already do not, fare well.

One once convicted by the Lord of that which you defend and teach, knowing others who also have been convicted of same, along with pornography and other vices, even to death, but now knowing better, by the grace of God, thereby taking a stand against ungodliness,

Victor

Click to read Darwin Fish Exposed...Again

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/issuesoflife/musteverythingbespelledout.htm

 

Re: Pastor Darwin Fish and "A True Church"

Phil Johnson has a good site on him; see also http://www.tektonics.org/af/fishd01.html which I reprint below though without live links.

****

A reader recently asked us to have a look at the teachings of one "Darwin Fish," yet another in that long line of singular persons who claims to be the head of the only group of people heading for heaven, while all others (including others who say the same) are headed for the Devil's House. I find as in several cases that a thorough expose' of Fish has already been done by others with more experience (see link below), so my own comments will be brief, and probably serve mainly the purpose of getting me added to Fish's Crustacean List. Some points of interest:

* Fish rejects scholarship (naturally) in favor of "plain readings" of the text.
* Looking oddly Mormon, he teaches that God is a human being in form, albeit one that was always incorruptible (see Chapter 1 of my book The Mormon Defenders), and sanctions polygamy.
* He commits common errors of decontexualization having to do with the relation of faith and works, discipling, corporal punishment,
* His positions are often excessively legalistic and picayune; at one point he even decreed that communion served in small cups and with small crackers was "unbiblical" and resulted in condemnation.
* He counsels active "hate" (in an anachronistic sense) of those who disagree with him.
* All this said, Fish, like anyone swimming in an ocean of truth, gets some things right, if only because they are easy catches (like finding false prophecies made by Benny Hinn!).

To round things off here, I'll address some of the claims found on Fish's site. Articles there are mostly either profiles of persons or ministries/groups (including cults) with an accounting of damnable errors (Fish's own "Rogue's Gallery"!), or are issues-oriented. The "issues" articles are the only things that cross my scope, and comments on a couple in particular will suffice to expose Fish's clumsy exegetical methodology.

Fish in Wine. Fish's article on wine and the Bible actually ends up with a final conclusion on the subject much like our own. Consider that coincidence, however, of the same sort between a person who gets to the bottom of a hill by a path, and another who gets there by jumping off a cliff. We can see clear examples of Fish's disdain for contextualization here, for example, as he responds to someone who used non-Biblical sources from the time of the Bible to inform the context of the Bible:

....Dr. Pietrylo supports this conclusion, not with Biblical proof, but rather he uses the testimony of Aristotle, The Donovan Bible Commentary, Smith's Bible Dictionary, and his own words, which all prove nothing; because Scripture is the standard, not Aristotle, Donovan, Smith, or Pietrylo no matter what they say (Colossians 2:8-10)!

It's no surprise of course to see Colossians 2:8 abused in the usual fashion (see here), but overall this is the usual error of Sola Scriptura Extremis, which rejects informing contexts. We are sure, however, that if Fish found a word in the English Bible he did not know, he would not reject using a dictionary to find out what it meant! (From the articles, it IS likely that Fish has consulted at least a concordance, however, which by his own standard is composed by "men" following linguistic "traditions"!) Fish however even goes as far as rejecting Pietrylo's account of how wine was made in antiquity because it "is nowhere substantiated in Scripture"! Even more amusing is this attempted twist. Pietrylo describes the process thusly:

The wine was stored by boiling the juice until the water was evaporated. What was left was a thick, nonintoxicating syrup or paste.

Fish retorts that "such dehydration is depicted as abnormal and bad" and cites Joel 1:10:

The field is wasted, the land mourns; for the grain is ruined, the new wine is dried up, the oil fails.

Fish manages to stretch this into saying that purposeful evaporation to create wine as described is the same as agricultural failure!

(Some of the sources Fish critiques are, BTW, correct that wine in Biblical times was not as strong, and though Fish is correct in deeming this irrelevant as it is used by these commentators, as before his main complaint is that proof of this is not found in the Bible, so that he essentially argues as though when the Bible wrote of "wine" it clearly meant it in the same sense -- level of alcohol, for example -- that it did for the bottle of Morgan David at the ABC Liquor! To be sure you understand, he warns you with Prov. 30:6, "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." In that case, all of Fish's commentaries on Scripture are no better!)

Amazingly then, to "refute" the historical process of mixing water with wine, well documented by historians, Fish cites Isaiah 1:22, "Your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water," so that it is said that mixing wine and water is a "bad thing"! Fish merely arbitrarily hops from the description of this wine as diluted and designates it "bad" in all cases, whether the dilution is 1% or 99%.

Next we have this clumsy dismissal of contextualizing. One of Fish's targets said:

Wine today is different than Biblical wine. "Strong drink . . . unmixed wine . . ." in Biblical times was only 3-11% alcohol. Those who drank this form of alcohol were considered barbaric! Distillation, which increases alcohol content, was not discovered until A.D. 1500. Modern wine has 9-11% alcohol; 80-100 proof whiskey and brandy has 40-50% alcohol; Biblically and culturally, these would have been unthinkable! (ibid.)

Fish amazingly accuses this commentator of "historical tunnel vision" and remarks petulantly, "Just because modern man records distillation as first being discovered in A.D. 1500, this does not mean the ancients of old did not use distillation," and cites Eccl. 1:9, "there is nothing new under the sun"! Not only is this exegetical abuse of Ecclesiastes and its genre (see here -- is "what's new" restrained to narrow categories like "specific methods of winemaking" or to broader categories like "wine making, by any means"?), it is a blatant head-in-sand approach that avoids the data rather than dealing with it. Fish essentially hypothesizes that there must have been secret, unrecorded methods of distillation to make liquor that strong, which is the sort of reasoning that would make only Acharya S and Christ-mythers happy. How naive to say that these arguments are "only supported by arguments from history and the supposed practice of that day," as though that were a problem!

Much of what else is written is sound on this topic, with the notable exception of using Proverbs 31:6-7 -- again, an abuse of proverbial lit (see link above) -- to justify buying drunkards more alcohol so they can drink even more!

Apocryphal Inanity. In an article directed against Catholic canonization of the Apocrypha, we find a great deal more head-in-sand, contrived treatments. As for example we note the NT's use of certain apocryphal documents (see here, some of this will be of interest, notably where Fish addresses such documents useful in our arguments. One point of note is that Fish argues against those that regard the Apocrypha as Scripture. He makes no clear statement about those who accept (as we do) that some of these works were used by the NT in a "allusory" fashion, though he does attempt to address the claim that such references are indeed made. He notes a website that lists about 300 such references, and selects about a dozen of the "worst" as illustrative, with one exception: Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7:

And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king under torture with whips and thongs, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh....When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly...After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, "Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?" He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, "No." Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, "You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws."

The parallel is clear, but here is how Fish tries to swim out of it:

So, all one has to do is find a document (or make one up) that records someone dying for their faith and having hope in the resurrection, and this means that these are the people the writer of Hebrews had in mind! This "indisputable" reference is an indisputable assumption about what was in the mind of the author of the book of Hebrews!

What remarkable obscurantism! Fish reduces this very complex matter to the level of a simpleton. It is not just "finding" (much less "making up"!) documents, but locating documents that the author is likely to be familiar with in his own social setting, and making content comparisons (as if "dying for their faith and having hope in the resurrection" was attested to in hundreds of other documents). Fish's response amounts to declaring the correspondence a coincidence (which wears thin as the number of such correspondences grows and becomes more dense, as in the article linked above); his charge of "assumption about what was in the mind of the author" is not only easily reversible (he "assumes" the mind of the writer as well!) and therefore worthless, but also stands against every rule for identifying literary allusions (no doubt to be tossed out as the "traditions of men," based on the usual skewed reading of Col. 2:Cool.

Two such documents we use in our article are then "critiqued" -- The Wisdom of Solomon (WoS) and Sirach. In much of this critique Fish is apparently trying to address ideas that these documents are to be canonical, by showing that they allegedly contain false doctrine; since we do not need them to be canonical, for us this sort of argument is beside the point. But to show that Fish's inabilities are not limited to Biblical exegesis, let's look at some of these claims.

* Wisdom 1:13 says, ". . . God did not make death". Please note Romans 11:36. I did. Get this: "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things." That's it. Fish thinks this is contrary. The verb "make" is not even used in Romans and "death" is not a "thing". The meaning of the passage, at any rate, is that all things belong to God, which is not a statement of creative activity to begin with.
* Wisdom 3:16-19 says, But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union will perish. Even if they live long they will be held of no account, and finally their old age will be without honor. If they die young, they will have no hope and no consolation on the day of judgment. For the end of an unrighteous generation is grievous. So, in other words, if you are born out of wedlock, you're going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it! This is against Romans 10:13, John 3:16, and Isaiah 55:6f. A little lesson in metaphor is in order. "Children of adulterers" here bears the same sort of meaning as calling Judas a "son of perdition." It has nothing to do with physical birth but fits in with the theme of abandonment of God as harlotry and adultery (cf. Hosea)
* Wisdom 6:17 says, "The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction." This is a lie. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Just because someone has a sincere desire for wisdom means nothing (in and of itself). Note Proverbs 1:28, "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me." Here is someone who has a "sincere desire for wisdom", but wisdom does not come! The lesson here is as helpful as it was for the atheist. Fish also does not seem to be quoting right; it says: "For the very true beginning of her is the desire of discipline; and the care of discipline is love; 18 And love is the keeping of her laws; and the giving heed unto her laws is the assurance of incorruption; 19 And incorruption maketh us near unto God: 20 Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to a kingdom." This is a description of what "fear of the Lord" results in.
* "In Wisdom 6:22 the writer says, "I will tell you what wisdom is and how she came to be, ..." This is a lie. The writer never says how wisdom came to be. The writer does, actually; this (and regarding Sirach 1:1, etc.) is where Fish is ignorant of "Wisdom" as a hypostatic figure (see link above).
* Wisdom 6:24 says, "The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world," This is a lie. Jesus is the salvation of the world (that is, for any who might be saved). Please note 1 Timothy 4:10. Uh huh. "That is..." That slippery qualifier is the sort of thing Fish does to ram out an equation. Also the word "salvation" is better read as "welfare" and is obviously not soteriological.
* Wisdom 12:11 says, speaking of God, "Although you are sovereign in strength, you judge with mildness, ..." This is a lie. Please note Hebrews 10:28 and Hebrews 10:30-31. Both references to final judgment, as it happens, but this is how WoS 12:11 reads: "For it was a cursed seed from the beginning; neither didst thou for fear of any man give them pardon for those things wherein they sinned." What happened here?
* Wisdom 14:27 says, For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. This is a lie. The worship of idols is the result of evil (Romans 1:28), not the beginning or cause of evil. Also, please note 1 Timothy 6:10. Please note rather that WoS 14:27 is literary hyperbole, proverbial in nature. This is like saying that "he hit that ball a mile high" is a "lie". Those who suffer from such hyperliteralism need a dose of mental Ex-Lax.
* Wisdom 15:17 says, People are mortal, and what they make with lawless hands is dead; for they are better than the objects they worship, since they have life, but the idols never had. This is contrary to Psalm 115:8 and Psalm 135:18. That's creative exegesis. Both passages say, "They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them." This is after a long list saying how idols have mouths but don't speak, and eyes but don't see, etc. which would mean 115:8 is saying that idolaters literally do not see or speak. Apparently Fish doesn't recognize a metaphorical insult when he sees one.
* Wisdom 16:21, speaking of the children of Israel in the desert, says, For your sustenance manifested your sweetness toward your children; and the bread, ministering to the desire of the one who took it, was changed to suit everyone's liking. This is contrary to Numbers 11:5-6. Where the Israelites whine for leeks and garlic, etc. -- at one time during 40 years of Exodus. That's contrary, all right.
* Wisdom 7:17 says, "For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, ..." This is a lie (obvious from the above). It's a worse lie not to complete the quote: "For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements..."

Now to where Fish absues Sirach. Some selections:

* Sirach 8:13 says, Do not give surety beyond your means; but if you give surety, be prepared to pay. This is contrary to Proverbs 6:1f; 11:15; 17:18; & 22:26. Yes. All proverbs (see link above). Fish thinks these are literal pieces of advice. Does he believe that everyone who hesitates is lost?
* Sirach also teaches the damning lie of self-esteem. It couldn't have no matter how Fish reads it. The concept of "self" as primary was yet to be thought of; that's what anthropological study will do for you. Still, where does Fish find his food? My child, honor yourself with humility, and give yourself the esteem you deserve. (Sirach 10:28) Let's do better than that, shall we? My son, glorify thy soul in meekness, and give it honour according to the dignity thereof. 29 Who will justify him that sinneth against his own soul? and who will honour him that dishonoureth his own life? It essentially says, honor your soul by not sinning. Then: One loses self-respect with another person's food, but one who is intelligent and well instructed guards against that. (Sirach 40:29) Hmm. Better translation than Fish got: The life of him that dependeth on another man's table is not to be counted for a life; for he polluteth himself with other men's meat: but a wise man well nurtured will beware thereof. "Self-respect" is read into the text.
* Sirach 12:4-7 says, Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner. Do good to the humble, but do not give to the ungodly; hold back their bread, and do not give it to them, for by means of it they might subdue you; then you will receive twice as much evil for all the good you have done to them. For the Most High also hates sinners and will afflict punishment on the ungodly. Give to the one who is good, but do not help the sinner. This goes directly against Luke 6:27-36 and Matthew 5:38-48. It does? We're not told how, but the intent of Sirach is one Fish would otherwise agree with, and does in practice: For the most High hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance unto the ungodly, and keepeth them against the mighty day of their punishment. Luke and Matthew meanwhile speak of doing good to those who do evil to you (and in specific contexts -- i.e., here) -- not doing good to just any sinner.
* Sirach 20:30 says, Hidden wisdom and unseen treasure, of what value is either? Better are those who hide their folly than those who hide their wisdom. In other words, "those who hid their folly are better than Christ."! Because, Christ hides His wisdom. Um, yeah, Sirach definitely had Christ in mind, 200 years before Christ. You think? And he definitely meant this proverb to be universal.
* Sirach 25:24 says, From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die. This is a lie and contrary to Romans 5:12. If it is, then Romans 5:12 is contrary to Genesis. As it is, Adam is used in Romans as a corporate head for humanity, not as a statement of chronology as in Sirach.
* More foolishness can be found in Sirach 26:5 which says, Of three things my heart is frightened, and of a fourth I am in great fear: [here's an ungodly fear] Slander in the city, the gathering of a mob, and false accusation - all these are worse than death. Worse than death? Jesus said to rejoice over such things (slander and false accusation, Matthew 5:11-12). Um, he said to rejoice in such things when it is done for his sake. Poor Sirach lived 200 years too early for that and was not a prophet.
* Sirach 28:18 says, Many have fallen by the edge of the sword, but not as many as have fallen because of the tongue. Happy is the one who is protected from it, who has not been exposed to its anger, [this is against Matthew 5:11-12 & Luke 6:22-23] who has not borne its yoke, and has not been bound with its fetters. For its yoke is a yoke of iron, and its fetters are fetters of bronze; its death is an evil death, and Hades is preferable to it.That's a lie! Worse than Hades? Please note Luke 16:23-24. Hades is definitely worse! Here again Fish needs some mental Ex-Lax to loosen up his hyperliteralism. To call the tongue "worse than Hades" is not a lie, but an obvious metaphor. There are many more where Fish takes proverbial verbiage hyperliterally which we will not dignify with a feature.
* Sirach 29:21 says, The necessities of life are water, bread, and clothing, and also a house to assure privacy. This is worldly wisdom. The necessities of life are food and clothing (1 Timothy 6:8, a house is not included). With these we should be content. As Christ himself had food and clothing, and no house (Matthew 8:20), and was content (being without sin, Hebrews 4:15). Just wanted to note the nitpick. The search for "errors" here is rather frenetic.
* Sirach 31:15 says, "Judge your neighbor's feelings by your own," This is against Matthew 7:1-2. We should not judge our neighbor's feelings. And that is a poor application of Matthew 7.

In close, here is the most helpful link to someone more in the know: Phil Johnson of John MacArthur's crowd offers some up-close and personal details.

http://www.atruecult.info/dfishfaq.htm

 

 -----------------------------------

From: isaiah*****@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:59 PM
To: drjohnson@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Question

 

Dear Dr. Johnson,

What do you think of this website? www.atruechurch.info

Thank you,
Ann

 ---------------------------------------

 

From: akfools
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:51 PM
To: Scott Johnson
Subject: Have you seen this website.


Scott,

          If you can find the time, please check out this site. The guy seems pretty out there.

 http://www.atruechurch.info/home.html
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2011, 03:58:30 am »

Quote
This guy is a pride filled, deluded cult leader.

i fully agree. this guy is a nut job and his site is full of lies and heresies.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy