Tuesday, September 30, 2014

1 Corinthians 16:2, who prospers you?

1 Corinthians 16:2, who prospers you?
 
KJB
1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

NKJV
1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

ESV
1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.

NIV
1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

NASB
1 Corinthians 16:2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.
 
KJB wins again. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

"devils" or "demons". KJV

Here is a comment I left in response to someone that said, "The KJV translations of individuals being possessed by “devils” is unfortunate. The word should be “demons"."

"devils" and "demons" are the same thing (in English usage). The context of a passage will clearly show if it is talking about THE devil (Satan--Rev. 20:2) or just a devil or devils. For example, Matthew 9:34 says "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils."
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Monday, September 29, 2014

James White finally goes to the KJV

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8
 (25:03)

James R. White (author of The King James Only Controversy) is one of those Bible correctors that complains about the King James Bible having "archaic" language in it. However, in this video, he used the KJV's reading "Mars hill" in Acts 17:22.

The reading "mars hill" comes from the KJV, not the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. that James White recommends. NOOOOPE. Those modern versions say "Areopagus"....not "mars hill".

Why did Jimmy not say "areopagus" and show off his ability to correct the KJB? Perhaps because the KJB reading was easier to read.......

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Doug Kutilek loses debate.

After not answer any of the following:

"Mr. Kutilek, what did you mean when you stated that the ESV translators were "inerrantists"? What do they believe is inerrant? Is that referring to preservation or inspiration? I was wondering if you could tell me where the inerrant scripture is right now, perhaps you could name one book (or the manuscripts that collectively make up) what you believe is the infallible word of God (whether it is in English, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)."

Questions for the anti-KJV.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/questions-for-anti-kjv.html 
 

Hoss vs Doug Kutilek, preservation of scripture.  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/hoss-vs-doug-kutilek-preservation-of.html


Doug Kutilek sent me this message.


"Eli--
 
IF you'd read my review of the ESV, you would have noticed that there is a web-link where the publishers identify the translators by name, and explain their qulaifications, their view of inspiration, etc.
 
(By the way--where is the "inspired original" KJV?   The translators' manuscript diappeared from history at the time of the London Fire of 1666.  All we have now are fallible and varying printed editions, no two being alike, and therefore none evidencing "perfect preservation.")
 
And as for your questions--your misguided remarks on Col. 1:14 were answered in detail in my essay on Greek texts and the blood of Christ; your bogus criticism re: Luke 2:33 was answered in the paper on the virgin birth; your false interpretation of Ps. 12 was answered in the the two essays on that Psalm; your question regarding I John 5:7 was answered in the study of that text (I could have sent you an additional one regarding Luther's exclusion of that clause from all of his German Bibles); etc.  I could answer every other one of your "objections" to the ESV, but if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these, there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance, then I will leave you there.  I have provided you with evidence; I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too.
 
Doug Kutilek"
 
Here is my response.
 
"Doug--

IF you'd read my review of your anti-preservation article, you would have noticed that you have been utterly refuted on the preservation issue.

(By the way--why didn't you answer my brief questions? "Mr. Kutilek, what did you mean when you stated that the ESV translators were "inerrantists"? What do they believe is inerrant? Is that referring to preservation or inspiration? I was wondering if you could tell me where the inerrant scripture is right now, perhaps you could name one book (or the manuscripts that collectively make up) what you believe is the infallible word of God (whether it is in English, Greek, Hebrew, etc.)."

And as for your ​essays, --what a mess. You did not use ANY verses to prove your satanic views on preservation. Nada. Nor can you answer my refute to your "bogus" preservation theories. The problem with your view of preservation is that you completely invented it--you don't back it with scripture.

Your theory (apparently) goes like this: God inspired the Bible--->Bible does not live and abide forever-----> God lost the Bible-----> Men have done their best over the years to preserve the Bible----> Man has done a pretty decent job of preserving God's book for Him----->Scholars like Doug Kutilek know what is part of the Bible and what is not and can find all the mistakes for the laypeople.----> Any verse in any bible that seems to be teaching "perfect preservation" does not really mean what it says.

Could you provide the scripture verses that teach that theory?

Meanwhile, if you want to call Joseph the father of Christ than you can go right ahead. If you want to omit the trinity from 1 John 5:7 than go ahead. If you want to kick the Lord's precious blood out of Col. 1:14 go right ahead......you are the one that will stand at the judgment seat of Christ for it--not me.

I found this statement of yours very typical of Bible correctors, see my comments in bold:

"...if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these, there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance, then I will leave you there.  I have provided you with evidence; I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too."

"....if you are not a serious enough student to discover what I wrote in these (not what the Bible says), there is no point in saying more.  If you are content in your blinding ignorance (All I did was give you scripture verses that I believed were true), then I will leave you there (I am cool with that).  I have provided you with evidence (YOUR evidence did not include scripture); I am not obligated to provide you with understanding, too (It is impossible for you to provide me with understanding even if you wanted to. You don't use or believe the Bible.)."

As for your question, ("where is the "inspired original" KJV"), that is also very typical of Bible correctors like yourself--always worrying about non-existent originals. I believe the Bible I have in my hand is the inspired word of God.

KUTILEK:(By the way--where is the "inspired original" KJV?   The translators' manuscript diappeared from history at the time of the London Fire of 1666.  All we have now are fallible and varying printed editions, no two being alike, and therefore none evidencing "perfect preservation.")
HOSS: Who cares where the original KJV is? It was destroyed. What makes you think we have "fallible copies"? I believe we have the  inspired/preserved words of God in our copies. That is the position Paul took (2 Tim. 3:15-17) and we are told to follow him (1 Cor. 4:16). KJB's have differed over the years with spelling, size, font, printers errors, etc......but that does not bother me. Those are not errors in the text itself.

You talk a lot about "evidence" but sadly you never incorporate the Bible as your evidence.

Have a great week! --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell"
 

Friday, September 26, 2014

Hoss vs Doug Kutilek, preservation of scripture.

Hoss Cartwright vs Doug Kutilek, has God preserved His word perfectly?

Before I critique Kutilek's article, let me state my position on the preservation of God's word. 

Psalms 12:
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever
.

Isaiah 40:
[7] The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.
[8] The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever
.

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:
[23] Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
[24] For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
[25] But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you
.

So those verses PROVE that God has preserved His word perfectly--and GOD is the preserver, not man (Psa. 12:7). God has preserved His word perfectly and the scriptures we have to day are still inspired. The word of God "liveth and abideth for ever". To even further supports this doctrine, Peter and Paul both professed the books they had in their hands were the very words of God--not mere error-filled copies of men.

 Peter says that the SCRIPTURE is even MORE SURE than the "God breathed" (Bible corrector lingo) words that came directly from heaven! 

2 Peter 1:
[16] For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost
.

If you read that carefully, you will notice the following:
1.) The written word of God carries more authority than the voice of God the Father speaking directly.
2.) Peter's followers had these words of God available to them and could TAKE HEED to them.
3.) The scriptures are not of any private interpretation because they are God's words--not the works of men.

Paul stated this same thing very plainly in two places.

2 Timothy 3:
[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If you read those two passages carefully, you will notice the following:
1.) There will be many deceivers in the last days of the dispensation of grace ("church age")
2.) The cure for not falling into deception is continuing in what we have been assured.
3.) Timothy (who did not possess any original autographs other than 1 and 2 Timothy) had know the "HOLY SCRIPTURES" ever since he was a child. 
4.) ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God
5.) The word of God only works effectually in BELIEVERS

If Timothy only possessed "accurate copies" that were "close to the original readings" but possessed "SOME minor errors" as the Bible correctors tell us, than he did NOT have "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES"! Only God is "holy", not man (1 Peter 1:15-16). Therefore the scriptures that Timothy possessed were of God and not human copyist work. 

Now let's look at some of the attributes of the word of God. Look at how God gave His words a lot of the same attributes as He has got.

(taken from a previous post)

Attributes of the living word of God.

Below is an outline of some of the attributes that both God and His word posses. The Bible is not a mere book, it is spirit and life (John 6:63). The Bible is alive and can discern our thoughts and intents (Heb. 4:12-13). When we approach the word of God unbelieving, the Bible closes truth to us (1 Thes. 2:13). There is nothing that is not manifest in the sight of the word of God (Heb. 4:12-13) even to the degree of forseeing what God will do (Gal. 3:8). The word of God is the sword of Spirit (Eph. 6:17) and is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9). God has given the Bible His own attributes and magnified it above His own name (Psa. 138:2).

Many people would say that those statements I just made are "idolatry", however I got those statements from the Bible and I am a Bible believer. I do not pray to the Bible, I do not believe that the Bible is God, but I do believe everything that the Bible says about itself is true.

Note: When I say "Bible" or "word of God" I am referring to the King James Bible.


CHRIST
--A light
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

--In our heart
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

--Perfect
2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

--Life
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

--Eternal
Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

--Truth
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

--Magnified name
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

--Knows the heart
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

--Should be trembled at
Ephesians 6:5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

--Satan tries to counterfeit
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

--We live by...
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

--Only works effectually in the lives of believers
Galatians 5:1-4 "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

--Liveth
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

--Is spirit
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


SCRIPTURE

--A light
Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

--In our heart
Psalms 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Jeremiah 20:9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.

--Perfect
Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

--Life
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

--Eternal
Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.


--Truth
Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

--Magnified name
Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

--Knows the heart
Hebrews 4:12-13 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."

--Should be trembled at
Isaiah 66:2, 5 "For all those things hath mine hand made, and those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word....Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."
Ezra 9:4 Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.

--Satan tries to counterfeit
2 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.

--We live by....
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

--Only works effectually in the lives of believers
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

--Lives 
Hebrews 4:12-13 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."
1 Peter 1:23-25 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

--Is spirit
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life
.

(also see these posts

1. What do you believe about the Bible? 
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/1-what-do-you-believe-about-bible.html  

2. How did God communicate, provide and preserve His words?
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/2-how-did-god-communicate-provide-and.html 

3. What do you believe about the King James Bible as compared to other translations, Greek texts, Lectionaries, etc?  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/3-what-do-you-believe-about-king-james.html


Fundamentals of King James Onlyism  
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/fundamentals-of-king-james-onlyism.html )
 

 
Now that I have established what I believe about Bible preservation, I will critique Mr. Kutilek's article. His article in red, my critique in black.


"First the KJVOites have created a new (?) doctrine which they call "verbal plenary
preservation" (VPP)  never heard of among fundamentalists before the 1990s (WHAT? Dean Burgon lived in the early 1900's, Dr. Ruckman began his KJB stuff in the 60's or 70's....Edward Hills, David Otis Fuller...they were all perfect preservationists along with their following.), supposedly a necessary corollary of "verbal plenary inspiration" (VPI). "What good," they demand to know, "is perfect inspiration without perfect preservation?" (There is no good in it) Of course, they don't ask the next logical question" What good are perfect inspiration and perfect preservation without perfect interpretation?" (WHAT??? Perfect interpretation? What is that? I know the Catholic Church believes that there interpretations are the infallible ones. But as seen above, the scripture is not of any private interpretation. We were told to study, love, believe, read, meditate on, and rightly divide the Bible for correct interpretations...2 Tim. 2:15, 1 Thes. 2:13, 1 Tim. 4:13, Psa. 119:140, 148)   Yet they don't as far as I know demand or claim the necessity of infallible teachers and preachers (the Roman Catholic Church of course claims all three perfect inspiration in the originals, perfect preservation in the Vulgate, and perfect interpretation in the papacy) (And King James, his translators, the AV, and AV believers are anti-Roman Catholic). A careful examination of the "prooftexts" set forth in support of perfect preservation in the KJV demonstrates that NONE of them is talking about the copying or translation process of transmitting Scripture. (And what proof texts support Scholarship Only, no-bibleism???? NONE)

Psalm 12:6-7 is actually, in context, talking about the preservation of the persecuted saints of v. 5, not the words of v. 6 (see my attached paper, which needs some updatingI wrote it 25 years ago). [Consult the commentaries of John Gill and Franz Delitzsch for sound treatment of the Hebrew text hereeditor]. (I don't care about your private and illogical interpretation of Psalms 12.

Here is the chapter...

Psalms 12:
[1] Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
[2] They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
[3] The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
[4] Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
[5] For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
[6] The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
[8] The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted
.


In verses 1 the Psalmist said that the godly man is ceasing and that the faithful men are failing. How could these people be “preserved from this generation forever” if they are ceasing and failing. They do not all get preserved and kept.

Verses 2-5 talks about the words of wicked men that “puffeth at” the needy with corrupt communication.

Verse 6 starts a new thought that ties in with God setting the needy in safety. The solution to the godly man ceasing, failing, and being oppressed by the words of the evil men is the words of God. God’s words are pure and the studying and reading of those pure words are what preserves the godly man. If the word of God was to cease or become corrupted then the godly man would cease and fail! You can't have godly men without the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:13-17 makes this VERY clear.

Now would verse 7 refer back to the people in verses 1 and 5 or verse 6? Well according to verse 1 not all of the people were kept and preserved, so the preservation is not the godly men, it is the words of God. The words of God were the last things mentioned, it is illogical to skip over verses to get a context. There wouldn’t be any godly men “from this generation forever” if there was no word of God “from this generation forever” (Matt. 4:4, Eph. 6:17, John 14:23, 2 Tim. 3:13-17). It is by the holy scriptures that a man is perfect and throughly furnished unto all good works.....


2 Timothy 3:
[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
.

 

Matthew 5:17-18 is talking about the absolute standard of righteousness contained in the Law, which is not going to be abrogated, lessened, lowered or reduced indeed, Jesus proceeds in the rest of the chapter to RAISE the standard to include not just actions but motives. God still demands absolute obedience to the letter and the spirit of the Law. And the mention of "jots" and "tittles" clearly has reference to the Hebrew text, and would have no reference to English or English versions at all even if we allowed the KJVOite "spin" on this verse. 
(Again, let's look at the text instead of letting Dog tell us what Christ meant. 

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
.


This is most definitely referring to the written scripture that the Jews had. A Hebrew Bible was arranged in three categories: The Law, The Writings, The Prophets. Christ states in Matthew 5:17-18 that He had not come to destroy either of the Law or the Prophets but rather to fulfill. He further states that none of it will pass away until ALL be fulfilled. The Law (Genesis-Deuteronomy) and The Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Kings, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 minor) have not been fulfilled yet and so the word of God is still preserved.  

Also see Luke 24:44 where Christ authorized the cannon of the OT books ("And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.")


Then Matthew 24:35 cannot be a promise than none of the words of Jesus would ever be lost indeed, there are doubtless millions of Jesus' spoken words that were never recorded (such as His hours long exposition of OT Messianic prophecy to the two who were walking to Emmaus in Luke 24), which are irretrievably lost to us now. Rather, in context, Jesus is pledging the absolute certainty that the prophetic words which He has just spoken in Matthew 24 will be completely fulfilled. 
(Says Doug. Meanwhile let's look at the Bible.

Matthew 24:
[34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
[35] Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away


Naturally (as our Brainiac already pointed out) Christ is not talking about every word that He ever spoke while on the earth (John 21:25), however, in the Bible the phrase "words of God" refers to the scripture. Yes, of course Christ's statement in Matthew 24:35 is aimed at the prophecy which He had just made, but it is not bound to ONLY those words right there. 

It is silly to believe that Matthew 24:35 only guarantees the exact preservation of Matthew chapter 24. God's word is God's word, it refers to the whole scripture. 

Isn't it amazing how far a supposed "christian" (like Doug Kutilek) is trying so hard to prove that we don't really have a Bible?)

In none of these places (and these are the chief proof texts of the KJVOers for VPP) (Actually you left out Isaiah 40 and 1 Peter 1 as well as 2 Timothy 3) does their interpretation coincide with what the text actually says. Furthermore, if God has promised to preserve His word inalterably, would He not be compelled to do so in the original languages, rather than merely restoring it via an English translation?  (Why would God be "compelled" to leave His word in some of the deadest languages in existence???? One of the attributes given to the word of God is that it is not BOUND (2 Tim. 2:9). God didn't fill "compelled" to keep His word in Hebrew...He wrote some of the New Testament in GREEK (why didn't He feel "compelled" to keep it in OT Hebrew?) Can Doug actually prove what all languages that the "original" was written in? http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/fundamentals-of-king-james-onlyism.html Why would God not want His word in the fairly universal language of English? Why would He keep His word bound in the Hebrew language? Israel has fallen and the Jews have been blinded (Romans 11) and until the rapture of the body of Christ (church) the Gentiles are God's focus in this dispensation (Col. 1:25-27, Eph. 2-3, Rom. 11:25). God commanded Paul to go to all nations for the obedience of faith (and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD, Rom. 10:17) according to Romans 1:6 and 16:25-26.)

Not only so, but I would expect to be able to trace this preservation almost continuously through history (Well "history" and what Doug Kutilek "would expect" is not my authority. The Bible that I have in my hands is my authority. Your unbiblical assumptions mean nothing to me.). Yet what we absolutely do NOT find is any evidence in extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of infallible copying. Every one of the thousands of Hebrew OT manuscripts as well as every one of the thousands of NT Greek manuscripts has acknowledged copyist errors and alterations (Question: If you don't have the originals to compare the copies to, how do you know what is an error? Do you have any verses that support your theories?). Where anywhere in history is there evidence of perfect, error free scribal reproduction of the OT in Hebrew or the NT in Greek? (Where is the evidence that "godly men" have been preserved all the way through history as you suggested? Where is the evidence that the original autographs were inspired? Where is the evidence that there will be a rapture, 2nd coming, millinial reign of Christ, etc etc.??? There is no hard evidence of those things UNLESS you believe the Bible by faith. You are looking at history and I am looking at what the Bible says. If you disregard the words of God (Bible) for the history of man than you are not a true christian....because Christ said "search the scriptures", John 5:39.) Surely if such occurred, there would be sufficient evidence or at least some
evidence to support this claim, but we find none (The evidence for a true christian is what the word of God says! I can trace the preserved word of God for the past 403 years, is that not enough? Do you realize that for a long time most of the early christians did not have a 66 volume Bible in one place that could be preserved as one book? Due to persecution and availbility of materials the early christians only had bits and pieces of scripture. You are not going to find a single book in a single language that has been preserved in one volume from the completion of the New Testament to now. You can only trace it back so far.) . And when we come to the era of printing, we find that no two printed editions of the "textus receptus" Greek are identical in all details; the same is true for the various editions of the printed Hebrew text (I am not an "original language preservation only" (POLO) so that does not matter to me.). Where is the evidence of "verbal plenary preservation" in any of that? (None: printing presses are not inspired. I have a Bible that has an ink streak in it, but that was not part of the Bible--it was a PRINTERS error.)  And even if we let them claim infallibility for the KJV (really "verbal plenary restoration" rather than "preservation" since no Greek or Hebrew manuscript or edition corresponds with the KJV in every detail) (The word of God is not bound to any language and the gift of tongues possessed by the early church (pre-95 AD) resulted in the word of God getting to many different languages. Those words spoken by the one with the gift of tongues would have gotten wrote down resulting in scripture being written in other languages. See this post http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/fundamentals-of-king-james-onlyism.html )  , they still are faced with the question of "which ONE KJV edition is the infallibly preserved one?" since even the first two editions (both issued in 1611) differ from one another in some 2,000 places, and later editions differ in many more places from these. And further, if some 17th or 18th or 19th or 20th century edition of the KJV is or could be identified as the infallibly, verbally perfectly preserved text, that de facto would mean that God did not keep His supposed promise of VPP until that edition came into existence, and even then, at best, merely restored the text He had not previously preserved. (The different editions with different spelling, font, size, and printers errors does not change anything about the text of the Holy Bible. [unless you expect printing presses to be inspired]) The chiefest problem with the error of KJVOism is that it imputes to God promises He never made [as Dean Burgon himself noted see
the opening quote for this article editor], thereby creating false expectations as to His actions. (Says you) When such false expectations are shattered by facts and reality (Doug's "facts and reality" are contrary to the Bible), the result is often great disappointment, disillusionment, spiritual let down, and commonly bitterness and anger misdirected toward God (this same kind of disillusionment occurs among those who buy into the "health and wealth" flim flam of the Charismatics; when healing does not occur, when riches do not come tumbling in, God is blamed for failure to keep His word, when in reality it is the Charismatic con men who have deceived people in the name of God who are to blame). 

The second effect of KJVOism's false claims is that by enslaving people to one, now very archaic, often obscure and not infrequently inaccurate version, the KJVO Pied Pipers deprive their followers of the better understanding of Scripture that would be theirs if they were to read a good version in more contemporary English (elsewhere, I have written in recommendation of the NASB, NIV, ESV and HCSB as individually and collectively much better translations better in accuracy and better in intelligibility for the contemporary English readers, than the KJV [See “Which Bible For Today?” AISI 10:3]). (I can understand the language of the KJB okay, and I haven't even finished High School. Anyone who studies, reads, and meditates on the Bible will be able to understand the language of it. Doug is the one that recommends studying the DEAD and ARCHAIC language of the "original Hebrew and Greek"!!!)

I suspect that the widespread lack of Bible reading among Baptists is in part a frustrated reaction to the frequent inability to understand the English of the KJV, and so the task is given up as largely unprofitable. (Are you suggesting that KJB believers don't read their Bibles as much as Scholarship Only advocates and that our reading of the KJB is unprofitable? 

Well known KJB advocates
1.) Dr. Peter Ruckman: Has reported to have read the Bible through over 150 times (which was many years ago, no telling what the current number is) and has written over 100 books, pamphlets, and commentaries....does that sound like "inability" and "unprofitable" to you? How many commentaries have you wrote? How many sermons have you preached? How many gospel tracts have you passed out? Probably not as many as Dr. Ruckman. Did I mention that Dr. Ruckman has a Bible college that he has trained many people to be preachers and teachers?

2.) Dr. Sam Gipp has read the New King James Version (to compare it with the King James Bible) FOUR TIMES.....the creator of the NKJV, Art Farstad, had not even read it ONCE (back in 1996). Farstad admitted that on television.

In fact, most every KJB believer I know reads the Bible regularly. All the preachers and teachers I have learned from have been King James Bible believers.
Your accusations are false.)


And I won't even mention the chaos that KJVOism has generated on many mission fields, where people who don't read English at all are told that they have no Bible since they don't use the KJV. Now THAT is HERESY. (I know from personal use that there are several Spanish and Romanian Bible versions that are decidedly SUPERIOR to the KJV. Native speakers of those languages could just as well tell stupid Americans that they have no Bible, since they don't use the Reina Valera 1960 Spanish Bible, or the Cornilescu Romanian version, especially the 1989 revision!). Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. I attach some articles relevant to the issue." (Kutilek, you can find one book on earth that is as good as a King James Bible. 

And what do the foreigners say about YOU when you tell them that they must learn Hebrew and Greek? 

Look at these quotes.

""There are no pure translations available in the Philippine major languages and dialects. Every effort (due to lack of linguistic ability in English and/or the target language) has introduced more errors. Some "KJVers" have tried it, but my observation has been that the Filipino pastors who know the KJB, laugh at their pitiful mistakes. One effort produced a Bible that said to the Filipino that when anyone, male or female became Christians --now, right at that moment became little male sons. John 1:12 certainly does teach we are "sons of God" but the English meaning is far from saying all males and females are right now little boys. Translation is a difficult task! Some languages don't even have a word or a concept for "believe". Try to say "believe on The Lord Jesus Christ" when there is no idea of "believe" in the language. How about teaching "the lamb of God" in a place where there have never been "lambs" or even pictures of one? You might as well be talking about unicorns to a Georgia cotton picker."" --Dr. Dave Reese (missionary to China and Philippines) 

(Dr. Reese teaches the Philippine people ENGLISH)


"We had a visit at church today from a Mr Mike Wajdner from SASRA Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Scripture Readers Association  http://www.sasra.org.uk/.  During his presentation he said that when SASRA reps had witnessed to some African soldiers on secondment to the British Army the reps had offered them New Testaments.  These NTs were NIVs or CEVs Contemporary English Versions.  These Africans, it should be noted, have English as their second language.  When these Africans looked at the NIVs and CEVS, they asked if they could have proper Bibles.  They meant King James Bibles.  The SASRA reps then arranged for these Africans to receive King James New Testaments from The Trinitarian Bible Societyhttp://www.tbsbibles.org/." --Mr. Alan O'Reilly

NICE TRY DOUG. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

Message sent to Doug Kutilek

Here is a message I sent to Doug Kutilek in reply to his ESV review that he sent me. (I also sent him my ESV review)
 
"Mr. Kutilek, what did you mean when you stated that the ESV translators were "inerrantists"? What do they believe is inerrant? Is that referring to preservation or inspiration?

I was wondering if you could tell me where the inerrant scripture is right now, perhaps you could name one book (or the manuscripts that collectively make up) what you believe is the infallible word of God (whether it is in English, Greek, Hebrew, etc.). --Hoss"
 
His reply
 
"Mr. Cartwright--
 
Your objections to the ESV are based on defective knowledge of the Greek language, defective knowledge of the English language, defective knowledge of NT manuscript evidence, misinterpretation of multiple Bible verses and flawed presuppositions.  I have answered in print many of these objections.  I attach some of my documented research papers (I have many others).
 
You have allowed yourself to be greatly deceived."
 
Notice that he didn't answer ANY of my questions. Doug Kutilek has no final authority other than himself. He said that 100 "scholars" were the ones who made the ESV.....Mr. Kutilek then said that he had found 100 passages in the ESV that needed to be changed/corrected. So why doesn't Mr. Kutilek MAKE those changes and then hand us a PERFECT Bible??? If HE knows where the errors are than it is his obligation as a Christian to fix the Bible for us.....is it not? 
 
Mr. Kutilek says that I am "deceived". What is the cure for deception? Look at what Paul said....
 
2 Timothy 3:
[13] But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
[14] But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
[15] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
.

If I were to accept what Kutilek told me, than I would not have a final authority or Bible. I would have DOUG KUTILEK. Meanwhile I will stick to the things that I have learned and been assured of.....the HOLY scriptures given by inspiration of God.

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
 

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Hoss vs Doug Kutilek, Colossians 1:14

 Hoss vs Douh Kutilek, Colossians 1:14. Hoss's comments in black, Kutilek's in red.

DO “CRITICAL” NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXTS SUBVERT
THE DOCTRINE OF BLOOD ATONEMENT?


An assertion commonly found among rigid advocates of the “King James Version Only/textus receptus only” (KJVO/TRO) point of view is that all modern Greek texts“ critical” or Alexandrian texts such as Westcott Hort, the various Nestle editions (1st1902; 27th1993), or the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament editions (1st1966; 4th1993) and also the “majority” or “Byzantine” texts (HodgesFarstad or RobinsonPierpont) subvert or attack the doctrine of blood atonement by excisingripping out references to the blood of Christ. (Actually, all we say is that the modern versions kicked Christ's blood atonement out of Col. 1:14 ("through his blood") and the prophetic reference to Christ's sacrificial death in Genesis 22:8 ("
God will provide himself a lamb ") and that most modern versions omit the word "blood" over 100 times (some 200) in the Bible. We do not say that modern versions destroyed the doctrine--we don't say that at all. We just say that you should never omit the blood atonement. Most Bible correctors say "well we didn't completely kill the doctrine just by omitting it in one place".....to that I say, could I get a wrecking ball and destroy only one room of your house, as long as I didn't destroy your entire home? Could I cut off one of your fingers as long as I didn't cut them all off????) A specific example summoned in evidence to prove this claim is Colossians 1:14. In all nontextus receptus Greek texts Alexandrian, majority, it doesn’t matter whichand in all English translations dependent on those Greek texts NIV, NASB, TEV, NEB, RSV, it doesn’t matter which the words “through his blood” (Greek dia tou aimatoV autou) are absent, gone, annihilated. Does this not prove their case and justify their assertion? What further proof could be needed to demonstrate the reality of this heinous assault on the fundamental doctrine of the blood atonement? Before swallowing this KJVO camel, let us consider the facts of the case. First, the blood of Christ is mentioned 40 times in the textus receptus editions of the New Testament and the KJV (if my count is correct), almost half of which have specific reference to the atoning value of the blood of Christ offered in sacrificial payment for our sins



Acts
20:28 “purchased with his own blood”

Romans
5:9 “being now justified by his blood”

Ephesians
1:7 “redemption through his blood”

Ephesians
2:13 “brought near by the blood of Christ”

Colossians
1:14 “redemption through his blood”

Colossians
1:20 “peace through the blood of his cross”

Hebrews
9:12 “but by his own blood”

Hebrews
9:14 “the blood of Christ”

Hebrews
10:19 “by the blood of Jesus”

Hebrews
10:29 “the blood of the covenant”

Hebrews
13:12 “sanctify the people with his own blood”

Hebrews
13:20 “through the blood of the everlasting covenant”

I Peter 1:2 “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus”

I Peter 1:19 “with the precious blood of Christ”

I John 1:7 “the blood of Jesus Christ his son”

Revelation
1:5 “from our sins in his own blood”

Revelation
5:9 “redeemed us to God by your blood”

Revelation
7:14 “in the blood of the lamb”

Revelation
12:11 “by the blood of the lamb”

Some are used with reference to the symbolism in the Lord’s supper



Matthew

26:28 “my blood of the new testament”


Mark
14:24 “my blood of the new testament”


Luke
22:20 “new testament in my blood”


I Corinthians 10:16 “communion of the blood of Christ”


I Corinthians 11:25 “the new testament in my blood”



I Corinthians 11:27 “the body and blood of the Lord”


Some are used figuratively of procuring salvation through faith



John
6:53 “and drink his blood”


John
6:54 “and drinks my blood”

John
6:55 “my blood is drink indeed”

John
6:56 “and drinks my blood”

A few of them are with reference to the guilt/responsibility for Christ’s death



Matthew

27:4 “I have betrayed innocent blood”


Matthew
27:6 “it was the price of blood”


Matthew
27:8 “called the field of blood”


Matthew
27:24 “innocent of the blood of this man”


Matthew
27:25 “his blood be on us”


Acts
5:28 “bring this man’s blood upon us”


A pair of occurrences are with reference to the literal physical blood of Jesus



Luke
22:44 “great drops of blood falling down”


John
19:34 “came thereout blood and water”


And finally a small cluster from I John that are hard to classify, being of uncertain (to me)
interpretation



I John 5:6 “by water and blood”

I John 5:6 “but by water and blood”

I John 5:8 “the Spirit and the water and the blood”


(I do not pretend that this classification scheme is entirely satisfactory, there being some
overlap in categories, and I certainly see the possibility of improvement; I do think I have
located and listed all New Testament references)


In one and only one of these forty places do the nonreceptus editions uniformly lack the reference to the blood of Christ, and that is in the Colossians 1:14 passage noted above. Is the excision, the exclusion, the deletion of “through his blood” there based on something other than sinister motives of the basest sort? Indeed it is. The simple reason the phrase is excluded from these printed texts is that the evidence in favor of including the phrase is notably weak and evidence in support of its exclusion is quite strong (The evidence for swapping "God" for "He" in 1 Tim. 3:16 is also very week.....but that didn't stop the Bible correctors--they are very inconsistent with their manuscript evidence). Adam Clarke in his famous 180 year old commentary (establishing that the facts have long been readily available to anyone and everyone who was actually interested in discovering the truth) well summarizes the evidence: “The clause dia tou aimatoV autou, Through his blood, is omitted by [Greek manuscripts] ABCDEFG, and most others of weight and importance; by the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Aethiopic, Sahidic, some copies of the Vulgate and by the Itala [Old Latin]; and by most the Greek fathers. Griesbach has left it out of the text. It is likely that the reading here is not genuine; yet that we have redemption any other way than through the sacrifice
of Christ, the Scriptures declare not. The same phrase is used Ephesians 1:7, where
there is no various reading in any of the manuscripts, versions, or fathers.” [vol VI, p.
515]. Somewhat more evidence is known today, but it merely confirms the thrust of
Clarke’s summary. (Yes, there was also ZERO manuscript evidence for changing "orthotomeo" (cut straightly=rightly divide) to "correctly handle" in 2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.)....again, you Bible correctors are not consistent with your manuscript evidence decisions.)


If it were true that the words “through his blood” were omitted in many ancient Greek
manuscripts and modern printed editions at Colossians 1:14 in an attempt to suppress
and eliminate the doctrine of blood atonement, those hypothetical textual corrupters who
carried out this doctrinal assault would have proven themselves as perhaps the most
inept enemies of the Gospel in all history, since they left the reference to the blood of
Christ unchanged in the Ephesians 1:7 (That is like saying that Satan wouldn't have possessed people with devils just because he couldn't possess everybody......) parallel, but more amazingly, did the same just 6
verses later in Colossians 1:20, where the words “having made peace through the blood
of his cross” stand unchanged and unchallenged in all witnesses. No, at Colossians 1:14,
the weight of evidence declares that the words “through his blood” were never an original
part of the text here (Have you ever seen the "original text"?), but were added later by scribes, in conscious or unconscious imitation of Ephesians 1:7 (Who says that Colossians was written after Ephesians? I haven't seen any proof of that.), with perhaps a bit of influence from Colossians 1:20.
[For additional and somewhat more detailed presentation of the evidence at Colossians
1:14, see Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Moody Press 1958 reprint), vol. 3, p. 201;
Alexander Souter, Novum Testmentum Graece (Oxford: University Press, 1947, revised
edition); Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the
Majority Text (Nashville: Nelson, 1985; second edition); A. Merk, Novum Testamentum
Graece et Latine (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute; seventh edition, 1951). In many
commentaries and Greek New Testaments, this variant is simply ignored, since the
exclusion of the phrase as the true original reading here is not a matter of dispute among
informed writers.] (So we need to look at man's sources to dictate what is part of the Bible?)


In only one other place is reference to the blood of Christ involved in a variant reading
where exclusion is favored by some Greek Testament editors, namely Luke 22:43, 44.
This passage, involving an appearance of an angel in Gethsemane and the bloody sweat
incident, is not quite unique to Luke in Greek manuscripts (it is actually found in one small
group of Greek manuscripts at Matthew 26:39). It is absent from several very early and
important witnesses (manuscripts, versions, and fathers).


[Any detailed treatment by us here would become too involved and distract us from the
larger issue; for a presentation of the evidence, let the interested reader consult The
Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, et al. (1st ed., 1966; 4th, 1993) where there
is a full presentation of the evidence; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), p. 177 briefly discusses
the evidence and how he evaluates it; F. H. A Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament (3rd edition, 1883), pp 599602 discusses in much fuller
detail the evidence known in his day, arriving at a conclusion contrary to Metzger, Aland,
et al. Scrivener’s presentation of evidence requires supplementation today; much of the
more recently discovered evidence goes against Scrivener’s conclusion.]

(So we need to look at man's sources to dictate what is part of the Bible?)


Even among text editors who conclude from the evidence that these two verses were not
an original part of Luke’s Gospel, they nevertheless commonly (but not universally)
include them in the text (Then they are DISHONEST DECEIVERS that should not have stamped "Holy Bible" on a book that they didn't believe was holy!!!!), albeit with markers that indicate that the verses are a later though very early insertion into the text. However this variant arose (either as an insertion
of nonoriginal material into the text, or the deletion of original material from the text either
deliberately or accidentally) (Oh, ok. What did the original say and what did it look like? Did you get a picture made of you standing next to it?), there is nothing to suggest that an assault on the doctrine of blood atonement is afoot, since the nearby reference to the same“The new covenant in my blood” in Luke 22:20 stands untouched in all printed Greek New Testament editions. At any rate the verse Luke 22:44 is not one that speaks directly of the redemptive value of Christ’s blood (in contrast to Colossians 1:14, textus receptus). Having considered these two places Colossians 1:14 and Luke 22:44 it is notable that in none of the other thirty eight references in the New Testament to the blood of Christ, is
there a question as to the genuineness of the text as it stands in the textus receptus, and
all other printed Greek texts (Westcott & Hort, Nestle, HodgesFarstad, etc.). Clearly,
there has been no wholesale assault on the doctrine of blood atonement either in the
Greek manuscripts or in modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament (Says you....mean while "
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" --Galatians 5:9).
On the other hand, there is some small evidence on which it could be claimed, using the
same criteria as the KJVO/TRO advocates, that the textus receptus (and all English
translations based on it, including the KJV) attack the doctrine of blood atonement by their
omission of a reference or two to Christ’s blood found in some Greek manuscripts but
excluded by the textus receptus. Specifically, at Matthew 27:49, some early and
important manuscripts, with limited support from ancient versions and a church father add
“and another took a spear and pierced his side, and water and blood came out,” words
nearly identical to a sentence found in John 19:34 (They must not be too "important"....the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and NIV left it out as well. You are trying to pretend that this is unique to the King James Bible when it is not. Naughty naughty Mr. Kutilek, mama have to spank.). Shall we fault the textus receptus
here and accuse its editors of assailing the doctrine of blood atonement for excluding this
phrase? Defenders of the textus receptus would counter that the evidence favoring the
inclusion of the words at Matthew 27:49 is especially weak, and besides, we have the
words in a parallel passage with absolute certainty of genuineness (and from which
passage the words in Matthew 27:49 were likely borrowed). (You have never seen the dead and decayed originals so you really don't know what was "borrowed" and what wasn't.) And to this we would readily
assent; the situation here is very much parallel to the variant at Colossians 1:14 visavis
Ephesians 1:7. We could add to our “evidence” of something “sinister” in the textus receptus the absence
of the “bloody sweat” passage from the textus receptus at Matthew 26:39, where, as
already noted, it is present in one group of related Greek manuscripts. Neither the textus
receptus, nor, consequently, the KJV has this reference to the blood of Christ, at least not
in this place (
the ESV, NASB, NKJV, and NIV left it out as well. You are trying to pretend that this is unique to the King James Bible when it is not. Naughty naughty Mr. Kutilek, mama have to spank.). But I suspect that no KJVO/TRO partisans will begin denouncing the textus receptus or the KJV for this “shocking assault “ on the doctrine of blood atonement.

If it were true that modern critical Greek text editors were making a deliberate attempt at
eliminating blood atonement from the Bible, we would expect many, if not most or even all
references to Christ’s blood to be eliminated or at least questioned in these critical Greek
texts, but we do not find this to be the case. In only two of forty places is there a textual
variant, and the conclusion of many text editors to exclude these two passages as nonoriginal
parts of the New Testament is not based on theological reasons, but on an
evaluation of the actual evidence from manuscripts, ancient translations and authors.
The absence of reference to the blood of Christ in some modern English Bible
translations most notoriously “Today’s English Version” (TEV), also known as “The Good
News Bible” (GNB)is a different matter altogether. There, the theology of the translator,
namely Robert Bratcher, who is a theological modernist, likely did play a major part in deemphasizing
blood atonement by sometimes (but not always) substituting “death” or
“sacrificial death” where the Greek literally has “blood.” (see Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7;
Colossians 1:20; Revelation 1:5; etc.). The issue here is the theology of the translator,
not the reading of the Greek text followed.

In summary, we must conclude that there is no assault on the doctrine of blood
atonement in modern critical Greek texts (LOL). All claims to that effect are false and are
attempts to incite emotional reactions and passions against those texts, rather than to
correctly inform interested listeners of the actual truth of the matter and the facts of the
case. The alteration of references to the blood of Christ in some few modern Bible
translations is a wholly unrelated issue, having nothing to do with the Greek text on which
those versions are based, and everything to do with the theological disposition of the
translator. (Says you.)
 
Doug
Kutilek
(Hoss
Cartwright)