“The Mythological “Gap Theory” by Dr. Peter Ruckman (Bible Believers Bulletin)

“The Mythological “Gap Theory” 

By Dr. Peter S. Ruckman:

 In a recent publication called The Gap Theory, by Kent Hovind and Stephen Hawwell, we have a denial of thirty-one verses in Genesis 1 on the basis that the “Institute for Creation Research” (El Cajun, California) believes in correcting the King James Bible anywhere its “constituents” cannot understand it. In this case, Dr. Kent Hovind, who taught Stephen Lawwell how to correct the Bible “with the original Hebrew,” as all Alexandrians have done since 1800 (to the tune of 30,000 changes in the Old Testament). 

The alibi for perverting the first chapter in Genesis (as the Scofield notes did in verses 6 and 16 to make them fit “modern, scientific research”) is that a “gap theory” was invented in the early 1800s to blend the belief in a 6,000-year-old earth with a 2,000,000,000 year old earth, as taught by evolutionists. The teaching, therefore, that Genesis 1:2– 3 refers to a catastrophe that took place AFTER God created the original earth is said to be a “godless theory” (Kent Hovind). The denial of this Biblical truth , in the book we are examining, is something so precious that it is “dedicated to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for His unchanging grace and mercy,” blah, blah, blah.

Typical, pious Fundamentalism in the Laodicean apostasy. Here is what is in this pamphlet ( The Gap Theory —no date or publisher on the pamphlet). 

Page 2: The writer assumes that every Christian who believes in the first chapter of Genesis, AS IT STANDS (see below), thinks that “billions of years passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.” 

They believe nothing of the kind. If you want the time it would be about 2,000 years, making an even 7,000 years between the first creation (2 Pet. 3) and the second creation (Rev. 21), in case Israel had accepted John as Elijah and the Rapture had taken place in Acts 7, ushering in Daniel’s Seventieth Week—which it did NOT. 

You see, at the root of the denial of Genesis 1:2–3 causing a necessary “recreation” is pure ignorance of both Testaments. This is always the case in every case of scholarly, Christian scholarship that messes with the King James Bible; not one exception since 1800. 

Then you are sidetracked for five pages with a “history” of the supposed invention of a “theory” (Chalmers, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin, Scofield, Larkin, Billy Graham, John Hagee, et al.) to prove that if any Christian discovers a Biblical truth that the highly educated Christian scholars have not found, it cannot be a genuine revelation; it has to be a heresy. 

All Alexandrians have done this for 300 years; they continue to do so in regards to more than forty-five revelations which came from the AV Bible, AFTER 1950, that none of them were able to find in any Hebrew or Greek text since those texts were written. (See The Unknown Bible, The Mythological Septuagint, ISRAEL: A Deadly Piece of Dirt, and the Bible Believer’s Commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Acts, Hebrews, The Minor Prophets, and Revelation.) 

All apostate, Laodicean Nicolaitans have one desire: to drag YOU down to their level of ignorance. 

Page 7: Now your time is taken up with the word “replenish” (Heb. “male”) with TWO meanings; one being “to fill AGAIN.” The apostate Fundamentalists tell you that God made an error here and should have used the Hebrew word “shana” if He had intended to “refill” instead of “fill.” Typical Bible correcting by a gnat-straining nothing, as you will see in a moment. 

Page 8: “Gap theorists frequently quote Jeremiah 4:23–24 to prove their point.” Not at PBI, sonny, Not once in thirty-eight years. Anyone can see the “birds” in verse 25 and the Tribulation references (vss. 20, 26), which liken the catastrophe in Genesis 1:2 to the earth in the future. 

You are to reject the King James text in 2 Peter 3 on the grounds that “there are good reasons to believe that Peter is referring to the flood of Noah” in verse 6. No text of 2 Peter 3 implies such a reference; verse 4 states the time of the flood to which Peter refers. 

“And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:4). 

Now watch how the Lord destroys the minds of Christians like Hovind, Lawwell, and Jim Tedder as they seek to destroy both Testaments (Gen. 1 and 2 Pet. 3). They say that the phrase “willingly are ignorant of” has to refer to a flood about which everyone knew, so it had to be Noah’s flood. Then to cinch

their case, they take the word “heavens” out of the context (see vss. 5, 7, 10, 13) and claim that if “the world” perished in the flood of Noah (Gen. 7:23) that fulfills the requirements of “the heavens and the earth” (2 Pet. 3:7) and “the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). 

Typical Laodicean “Fundamentalist” scholarship by Biblical illiterates who mess with the AV text: absolutely typical. 

To get rid of the THREE heavens and earths that are listed in 2 Peter 3, Hovind and Lawwell grab a verse out of Revelation 21 to refute them. This verse (vs. 1) was simply comparing the new heavens and new earth (AND New Jerusalem— they forgot that one! ) that had just vanished away. There was no Jerusalem, new or old, in Genesis 1:1. 

“The first” in Revelation 21:1 is NOT a doctrinal reference to the history of the earth since Genesis 1:1. Second Peter 3 is a history since Genesis 1:1. 

Now notice that. Notice it carefully. Observe the same “Scriptural ignorance” of Curtis Hutson and John R. Rice when dealing with Acts 10:43 to prove that everyone in the Old Testament under the Law got forgiveness of sins through the name of Jesus Christ; His blood atonement was preached by all of the Old Testament prophets (Acts 10:43). IT WASN’T. 

They didn’t. Not one prophet in the Old Testament talked about salvation “through the name of Jesus Christ.” Not one of them. Acts 10:43 said they did, just like Revelation 21:1 said the

New Heavens and New Earth came right after “the first” ones. Note another example in the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4, which would indicate no others exist. But there are seven of them; they are listed in any version of a King James Bible. The trick is to quote and use Ephesians 4:5 as a “proof text” to prove a lie. That is why Hovind and Lawwell quoted Revelation 21:1. 

Note! All Biblical illiterates can find “proof texts” with which to teach a lie if they lack the spiritual discernment (or the zeal) to “search the scriptures” instead of “history” (pp. 4–7) or Hebrew and Greek words (pp. 7–9). Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in all Laodicean colleges, seminaries, and universities. 

Now, Exodus 20:11 is quoted to prove that nothing existed before Genesis 1:3. No angels, no cherubim, no seraphim, etc. Unfortunately, angels were present in Genesis 1:1, before God made the earth. The apostates forgot Job 38:4, 7 (“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding . . . When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”) in their anxiety to make a liar out of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:2–3. 

Finally, to undermine your faith in the word of God completely, these apostates tell you that if you believe what Clarence Larkin, E. Bullinger, Cornelius Stam, C. I. Scofield, Gabelein, Frank Norris, Jack Hyles, Oliver Green, Pember, et al., believed about Genesis 1:2 you have “ denied the purpose of the cross.” That would make you a Christ-rejecting infidel. The Mythological “Gap Theory” 

Note: this is the exact position of all Dry Cleaners (“Bereans”) when teaching 1 Corinthians 1. They link verse 14 with verse 17 so that if you teach that a convert of Jesus Christ should follow Him (and Paul!) in water baptism you are denying the efficacy of THE BLOOD ATONEMENT. 

Typical bigoted, ignorant, Biblical illiteracy in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Absolutely uniform from all quarters. 

In their deluded madness Hovind and Sawwell cry out, “If death existed prior to Adam’s sin then would it be the RESULT of sin?” (p. 17). 

Simple, you silly asses (and I say that with “charity” of course! Of course!): who said anything about any man or animal dying before Genesis 3? Straw dummy. It couldn’t have been Satan, for he is alive and well before Genesis 1:2 as a cherub (Ezek. 14), and he is alive and well AFTER the mythological “gap” (Isa. 14), and he is still alive and running the world in the twenty-first century. The angels were “cast down” (2 Pet. 2), not killed, and are in a pit (Jude) of fire. Those angels were drowned in the days of Noah long AFTER Genesis 3. 

What is the matter with Hovind and Sawwell? Nothing that hasn’t been a standard order of procedure for more than 300 years with EVERY Christian scholar who messed with the King James text (any edition of any revision). God messes with his mind. Now! Let me show you why we call these great, good, “godly,” scholarly men “twinkies,” “cloned robots,” “goofballs,” and “programmed jackasses.” Look at Genesis 1. This time read it and dot each

verse. Have you done it? Got thirty-one dots, do you? If not, do it. You do not need a third-grade education to do it: do it. 

Do you see the word “and” at the beginning of verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. to the end of the chapter? You do not need a thirdgrade education to see it. Only a Greek or Hebrew scholar would fail to see it. So let us, for the sake of “argument,” pretend for a moment that we are highly-educated, scientific, godly Christian “researchers” bent on “enlightening” the Body of Christ and saving them from the awful heresy of “the Gap Theory.” Let us “go to the original Hebrew” and see what this word “and” should be! 

Oops! It is “waw consecutive”  (“VAU” in some texts), the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It pops up thirty times in thirty-one verses, beginning with verse 2. Guess what it means! 

It means “AND”! “And” is an addition. Not once in thirty verses does it refer to anything that happened in a verse BEFORE it. Every time “and” occurs in Genesis 1 it is an additional statement of something that takes place AFTER the previous verse. Not one time— not one out of thirty times —does any verse in Genesis 1 describe what took place, in time, BEFORE the “waw consecutive.” What does this mean? It means that verse 2 can no more have any reference, in time, to what took place in verse 1 than it would have a reference to John 3:16 or Romans 8:28. 

There has never been a gap “THEORY.” The “gap” was a Scriptural fact confirmed thirty times in the very chapter in which it appeared. Any second-grade student could see it. apostate Biblical illiterate could fail to see it. We have the “winners,” don’t we, baby?! 

I hate to keep saying “note,” but if you don’t “note” it, these fake “Bible teachers” will keep right on pulling the wool over your eyes till the Rapture: and it is 80 percent cotton at that. Here, an entire chapter in the Bible has been sacrificed to prove a LIE, and any simpleton, without referring to ANY Hebrew word or ANY Greek word (LXX version), should have into such nonsense as “replenish” and “fill” in Hebrew, or “tohu” and “became,” etc., are NOT RELEVANT to any system of interpretation or exposition. 

These are just typical “dodges” and “distractions” to call to your mind that the destructive critic is more highly educated than you are, so you need HIM and his opinions or “researches” to understand a verse with which no one would have any trouble if they read the chapter. 

Verse 24 does not describe how God carried out verse 22. Verse 22 does not describe how God carried out verse 21. Verse 20 takes place BEFORE verse 21; verse 17 takes place BEFORE God decided to let the lights “rule” and “divide light from darkness”; in verse 15 He decided to do this before He did it in verse 16, which took place before he “set them” in verse 17. Is that clear? 

God did not see the quality of His light (vs. 4) before He spoke it into existence (vs. 3). He did not speak it into existence (vs. 3) till “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (vs. 2). Verse 2 is not a description of anything God did in verse 1. Verse 1 precedes verse 2. Get it? The “waw consecutive” shows the chronological order thirty times in thirty-one verses. 

Hovind and Lawwell, being just as confused as Bob Jones III or Arlin Horton trying to explain Hebrews 6 (or Clarence Sexton or Lee Roberson trying to explain Heb. 3), pretended that verse 2 was telling you HOW God carried out the previous verse: not one time in thirty verses, NO. 

Note (!!) that Exodus 20:11 is not a doctrinal statement on the history of creation. If it was, it would be false. There are three heavens after Genesis 1:2. Didn’t you read the New Testament (2 Cor. 12)? DO, they didn’t. 

Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 is explaining WHY a Sabbath rest was given to Israel. It is not a chronological account of creation as given in Genesis 1 by the Holy Spirit via Moses. It is the present heaven and earth about which Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are talking, exactly as Revelation mentioned the earth that was PRESENT in Revelation 20, before Revelation 20:11. Simon Peter, giving a doctrinal account of the history of the HEAVENS and earth (see 2 Pet. 3), clearly locates and describes three different combinations of “heavens and earth.” 1. The heavens and earth that WERE (vss. 5–6). 2. The heavens and earth that ARE (vs. 7). 3. The heavens and earth that “shall be” (vs. 13). The earth, in the heavens and earth “which are now” were not “standing out of the water and in the water” and it was not “overflowed with water.” It was RAINED out (Gen. 6–8). That isn’t all. The heavens and earth that “WERE” were “from the beginning of the creation.” Genesis 1:1 is the “beginning”— not the six days of creation that follow (vs. 2). The “BEGINNING.” Note: “FROM” the beginning. 

Try the “King’s English” from 1611. It is vastly superior to Hebrew and Greek scholarship of any profession in 2002.

Jan Wilbourn and the definition of “regeneration”

A certain religious fellow by the name of Jan Wilbourn said to me regarding the post I did on the new birth: 

“God Rightly Divide's  how the term " born again " was to be used and God used this term to Israel! God used the term " regeneration " with the church the body of Christ and we go by the way God Rightly Divides!”

“God wrote one term to Israel " born again " and another term " regeneration " to the Church the Body of Christ.”

“The word " regeneration " comes from the Greek word " palingenesia " translated twice " regeneration " nothing about birth????? The greek word " palingenesia " comes from another Greek word "palin "  which is translated " again " (142x). [ nothing about birth ]

Probably from the same as πάλη (G3823) (through the idea of oscillatory repetition) which is the Greek word " palē " which is translated " wrestle (1x). [ nothing about birth ? ] And all of these Greek words come from the root Greek word " ballō " which is translated : cast (86x), put (13x), thrust (5x), cast out (4x), lay (3x), lie (2x), miscellaneous (12x). [ nothing about birth ]

If you have noticed NONE of the translated work from the inspired Greek translators of the KING JAMES use " birth " in connection to this word!”  

And also he added…

“Regeneration " is not " generation? " You cannot see that they are even spelled different? These are two different words! Eli, you have a computer or phone because you are on here? Go to Blue Letter Bible and use the [ tools ] to look up words and how the King James translators translated the words and how they differ. Be honest do you see the difference in the two words above? " Re " and no " Re " in the words above? STUDY! Words that are spelled different are different?”

Now as I said in the post on new birth, there are certain people who try to police the terminology new birth, born after the Spirit, etc. because their religion tells them that it is the same thing as Israel being born again as a nation at the Second Coming (Isa. 66:8). This is a religious tradition and not scripture, for Paul wrote to the Body of Christ that they were “born after the Spirit” and had received the washing of “regeneration” and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Gal. 4:29; Titus 3:5). 

My post acknowledged and shared many scriptures on the distinction between Israel being born again at the Second Coming and the new birth of the believer in the Body of Christ. But just as I said in my post on the new birth, people would try to make this an issue of whether you are rightly dividing the word of truth or not. That is not the issue. Jan Wilbourn wants to make it sound like if you believe the members of the Body of Christ experience a new birth upon salvation then you are not rightly dividing the word of truth. That is because his religious denominational mentality dictates that we not question his assumptions (that Israel is the only one that experiences a new birth) and if anyone does question his religious beliefs then he gets mad, accuses you of not rightly dividing, and says not to use that phrase (“born again”). 

Mr. Wilbourn reminds me of the very religious Jews in Acts chapter 22 that got so offended at Paul’s use of one word. 

Acts 22: 

[21] And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
[22] And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Religious people hate for you to question their traditions. Bible believers encourage others to search the scriptures and check to see if what they are saying is true (Acts 17:11) and “prove all things” (1 Thes. 5:21). Jan Wilbourn does not like for people to question his religious traditions that make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13). In fact, though Jan Wilbourn professes to be a King James Bible believer, he said above that “regeneration” does not really refer to a new generating (birth) because his Blue Letter Bible app tells him that the same Greek word can be translated other ways. He would never admit to this, but in essence he thinks it is okay to change Titus 3:5 to a different word because the KJB translators translated it differently in other places. The reason he wants to say “regeneration” does not really mean generating again is because it disagrees with his religious system. He wants to change the word of God to (in the name of the KJB translators, how pious!) fit his theology just like all the Bible perverting Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodist, Campbellites, and JWs. The Grace Movement is supposed to be opposed to religious tradition and denominationalism, but Jan Wilbourn is still very much in bed with them. As for his claim that the root Greek word is not associated with a birth or generation, he points out that it is translated as “cast forth”, “cast”, “thrust”, etc. Is not a baby cast out of the mother’s womb? Thrust out? Born. I believe that the KJB translators use of “regeneration” is accurate and is the word God put in His book. 

Jan Wilbourn and I have been to the same Bible conferences and probably agree with each other on almost everything dispensationally (Mid Acts Dispensationalism). Yet because I said at the end of my post that the Body of Christ does experience a new birth, he deleted me from his online “Rightly Dividing Explained” forum and got very offended (I have the correspondence saved if anyone would like proof). 

But as for the issue at hand. Paul said that we are “born after the Spirit”…

Galatians 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Everyone on Earth has been born at least once (obviously)

#1 physical birth 

And per the apostle Paul, believers are “born after the Spirit”. 

#2 spiritual birth

Therefore, despite all of Jan Wilbourn’s Strong’s concordance Blue Letter Bible perverting smokescreen, the Body of Christ does experience a new birth. A second birth. Therefore we are born “again”. The word “again” means “a second time”. So if you have been physically born and then get saved and are “born after the Spirit” then you have been “born again”.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Now as for “regeneration” the scriptures are clear. A “generation” is a birth (Gen. 10:1, 17:12; Matt. 1:1, etc). So a “RE”generation would be a new birth. I am sure Jan Wilbourn would agree that a refill of water is a second cup of water, a rerun is a second airing of a show, a rewrite is a second writing, etc. But because Jan Wilbourn’s religious tradition does not allow him to believe that the Body of Christ experiences a second birth, he has trouble figuring out what “re” and “generation” mean when put together and tries to change the word of God to fit his religion. 

Also, Jan Wilbourn made the statement that “born again” is for Israel and “regeneration” is for the Body of Christ. He seemed to be ignoring Matthew 19. 

Matthew 19:

[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[29] And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

As I pointed out in the post on being born again, Israel’s regeneration at the Second Coming is different than a member of the Body of Christ being regenerated upon salvation. My point here is not that they are the same, only that the words “regeneration” and “born” are used of both groups (yet to describe different things). 

Like I said in the previous post on being born again, John 3 was not written to the Body of Christ. What I have said is that the Body of Christ is born a second time (spiritually) based on Titus 3:5 and Galatians 4:29. It is okay for both Israel and the Body of Christ to have a spiritual birth. Just like they both have their own rapture/resurrection, destination, salvation, etc. There is no reason to be afraid of the term “born” as if it will make you no longer a dispensationalist “rightly dividing the word of truth”. 

I would challenge Jan Wilbourn to demonstrate from the King James Bible, without changing the words because of the “Greek” he learned from Blue Letter Bible app, that “regeneration” does not mean a new generating. Or can he prove that somehow being “born after the Spirit” is not a new birth or being born “a second time”? Also, can he show what is the danger of both terms being applied to Israel and the Body of Christ? Because the Bible uses “resurrection” for both groups, “saved” for both groups, etc. and it causes no confusion as long as you rightly divide the word of truth.  

The big picture

 

Born again. Israel or the Body of Christ?

Within mainstream evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity in America the term "born again" is synonymous with being saved. I have seen billboards and signs put up by churches that say "ye must be born again". We can admire their effort to use the word of God to reach people, but the term "born again" has no special meaning to a lot of people and they do not know what it means. A better use of the billboards and signs would be scriptures such as "Christ died for our sins" or "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ". The phrase "born again" to people unfamiliar with the word of God could mean a lot of things, such as starting a new life with a clean slate. They think it means to quit doing certain things (drinking, drugs, etc.) and turn over a new leaf. Of course that is not what it means and it is not the fault of God's word that people misconstrue it. But at the same time if you put the five words "ye must be born again" on a sign without the context or explanation that Christ gave in that passage (John 3) how are people going to understand it? The scripture gives light yes, but knowing an isolated few words with no context can be just as dangerous as not knowing the scripture at all. For example, if all you knew was "be saved in childbearing" (1 Tim. 2:15) you could come to the conclusion that only women that bear children could be saved and all the childless women and all men are not saved. Of course the passage is talking about being saved from deception in context, which shows how important context is when learning scripture verses.

On the flip side, many good dispensationalists have started teaching that we (the Body of Christ) are not "born again" and the passage is strictly about Israel. It is true that John was an apostle of the circumcision commissioned to preach the gospel of the kingdom (Gal. 2:9; Matt.24:14). It is also true that Christ said to Nicodemus "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (so "born again" is found in the Old Testament and Nicodemus should have known about it). Even so, that does not mean right off the bat that John chapter 3:1-10 have no connection to the church the Body of Christ. Christ's death and resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament (Isa. 53; Ps. 22; Acts 2:27), yet that is the basis for there being a church the Body of Christ (Eph. 2:16-18; Col. 2:10-15). Prophecy and Mystery must be rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15, Rom. 16:25, Acts 3:19-26), but that does not mean that there are not connections between the dispensations or foundational things that cross dispensations. For example, the dietary laws that began in Genesis 2 changed in every dispensation, but that "God made them male and female" has continued in every dispensation since the "beginning of the creation of God". 

So is it of necessity that being "born again" is strictly for Israel? Not simply because it is found in John chapter 3 outside of Paul's epistles. We would need more proof than that. The simple thing to do is look at what being "born again" means and look and see if Paul said anything about it to the Body of Christ. 

Before we look at that, I would like to point out that what we believe about being born again is not the standard for whether we are rightly dividing the word of truth. I have heardcpeople say that if you believe you are “born again” then you must not understand dispensationalism and you are borderline embracing replacement theology. That is simply not true. One of the greatest dispensationalists of the 19th century, Sir Robert Anderson, who was an Acts 28 dispensationalist, believed in using the term "born again" and applying scriptures such as John 3:16. 

Sir Robert Anderson The Silence of God page 157, “Greatest of them all is the miracle of the new birth by the Spirit of God, with its outward side of conversion from a life of selfishness or sin to a life of consecrated service.”. (Reprint of the 8th edition, Kregel Publications) 

Sir Robert Anderson in Forgotten Truths, “In the early years of my Christian life I was greatly perplexed and distressed by the supposition that the plain and simple words of such scriptures as John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, and 1 Timothy 2:6 were not true, save in a cryptic sense understood only by the initiated…But half a century ago a friend of those days—the late Dr. Horatius Bonar—delivered me from this strangely prevalent error.” 

There are many other quotes from other good dispensational authors I could give. Not because they are authoritative, but to demonstrate that this "born again" issue is not what makes you a dispensationalist or not.

From the scriptures, here is what we know about being "born again"....

Israel was born of God in the Old Testament. "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Exod. 4:22-23). God created Israel as a nation and as a son under the Old Covenant. Prophecy states that He will create them as His people again under a New Covenant and that they will be born again.

Isaiah 43:

[1] But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
[2] When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
[3] For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
[4] Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
[5] Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
[6] I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
[7] Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

We see here in Isaiah 43 another reference to Israel being 'created" and "formed" by God for His "glory". They are His "sons" and "daughters". In verse 5-7 we see a prophecy of believing Israel's 'post tribulation' rapture where they will be born at once (again) under the New Covenant. "I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth". They will be born of the Spirit under this New Covenant and their sins will be blotted out. This takes place at the Second Coming of Christ.

Isaiah 44:

[1] Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
[2] Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
[3] For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
[4] And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
[5] One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

Compare verse 3 with John 3:5-7 "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." 

Further down in Isaiah 44 we see the "regeneration" when believing Israel will receive eternal life just like Christ talked about in Matthew 19:28-29, "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Isaiah 44:

[21] Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.
[22] I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
[23] Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.
[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

 This is exactly what Peter was referring to in Acts 3:19-21, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

Back in Isaiah 43 we see more references to God creating Israel as a nation and blotting out their sin.

Isaiah 43: 

[14] Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.
[15] I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.
[16] Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters;
[17] Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow.
[18] Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.
[19] Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.
[20] The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
[21] This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew forth my praise.
[22] But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob; but thou hast been weary of me, O Israel.
[23] Thou hast not brought me the small cattle of thy burnt offerings; neither hast thou honoured me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.
[24] Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.
[25] I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.
[26] Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified. 

"But thou hast not called upon me, O Jacob...declare though, that thou mayest be justified." (vs. 22, 26) reminds me of Peter's message in Acts 2:21-22 "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Ye men of Israel, hear these words..." 

Here are more scriptures on Israel being born of God, having their sins forgiven, and brought back to the land (a post tribulation rapture) at the Second Coming for the Millennial reign of Christ. 

Isaiah 46:

[3] Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb:
[4] And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.

Isaiah 49:

[1] Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.
[2] And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
[3] And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
[4] Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
[5] And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
[6] And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
[7] Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.

Isaiah 65:9 And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

Isaiah 66:7-8 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Psalms 22:30-31 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

Psalms 102:

[16] When the LORD shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory.
[17] He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer.
[18] This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.
[19] For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth;
[20] To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death;
[21] To declare the name of the LORD in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem;
[22] When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.

Jeremiah 31:

[8] Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
[9] They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
[10] Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
[11] For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

It is clear why Christ said to Nicodemus, "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Believing Israel receiving the Holy Spirit is prophesied all through the Old Testament (Isa. 44:3; Ezek. 11:19, 36:25-27; 39:29, Jer. 31:33; etc.). If you follow those references and all the other references to the New Covenant such as Jeremiah 3:17, 7:1-7, 24:4-7, 50:4-6; Ezek. 16:60-63, 34:25, 39:29, etc. it can be seen that Israel will be born again at the Second Coming of Christ when they are gathered to the land to enter the Kingdom, having their sins forgiven, a new heart, and the Holy Spirit that will cause them to walk in God's law. This explains why John says the following.....

1 John 3:

[9] Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
[10] In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Compare this with Ezekiel 36. 

Ezekiel 36:

[24] For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
[25] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
[26] A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
[27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
[28] And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

John wrote his epistles prophetically to the believers of the gospel of the kingdom in the "last time". 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." 

So with these ideas in mind, we do know that the church the Body of Christ is not born again at the Second Coming as a nation like Israel will be. We are already justified and have our sins forgiven (Rom. 5:9) and our rapture is not at the end of Daniel's 70th (1 Thes. 1:10). We have the Holy Spirit now and we are not waiting for Him to be poured out at the last time (Eph. 1:13). 

With that being said though, we have not actually looked at John chapter 3 yet.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:

[1] There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
[2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
[3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
[4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
[7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
[8] The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
[9] Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
[10] Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

I underlined a few lines that I think are important when discussing this topic. Christ said that "a man" must be born again to see the kingdom of God. So individual believers had to be born again, not just the nation at the Second Advent. Each individual was born after the Spirit when they got saved (John 1:12-13) and when the nation is gathered at the Second Advent the nation will be born at once (Isa. 66:8). 

Individual new birth does relate the church the Body of Christ. 

1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

To be "regenerated" means to be born again. To "gender" as a transitive verb means "to beget", as in Job 38:29. So to "regenerate" means to beget again. Webster's 1828 dictionary defines it as "born anew" (when an adjective). This is indisputable. All the people that are policing the use of terms such as "born again" in the name of "rightly dividing the word of truth" are completely wrong.

Galatians 4:

[22] For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
[23] But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
[24] Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
[25] For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
[26] But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
[27] For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
[28] Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
[29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

In this "allegory" Sinai is represented by Agar, a "bondwoman", representing the law. The "freewoman" was Sara, represented by Jerusalem and being free from the law [see chapter 3 vs. 7-26 for more of the context on Gentiles receiving the promise of the Spirit through faith, described as the "blessing of Abraham" because he received imputed righteousness by faith before the law was given (Rom. 4).]. Isaac was "born after the Spirit" in the sense that his birth was supernatural, the Holy Spirit had to perform a miracle for him to be born due to Sarah's age. But notice verse 29, "as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now". Paul said that the Galatians were "born after the Spirit". That part is not the allegory, that is the interpretation of the allegory. 

There are many right divisions to make in the Bible (2 Tim. 2:15). Israel and the Body of Christ. Prophecy vs Mystery. Standing vs state. There are different raptures/resurrections in the Bible.Things that are different are not the same. Things that are similar are not the same either. Born again is different for Israel than it is the Body of Christ, but they are both still born again. Anyone who is no longer “in Adam” and a child of the devil, is “in Christ” and born into the family of God by the Spirit. If we are hoping to teach people right division then we would be better off sticking to real divisions. We hurt our cause if we tell people that the Body of Christ is not born again and then they read in Paul’s epistles that they are “regenerated” and “born after the Spirit”. 

The people that want to police the terminology “born again” usually present no argument other than the Gospel of John was not written by Paul. They do not address the word regeneration or Paul saying that we are born after the Spirit. They also do not usually address individual rebirth (John 1:12-13, 3:5), they usually only mention Israel being born as a nation. 

 

Church “Attendance” in the Dispensation of Grace

 

God’s inspired book

 “Some have concluded that because the original words that God spoke were in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, that God only inspired and preserved the words in the original languages. This is an erroneous teaching for at least two reasons. First of all, because we learn at the Tower of Babel that God is the Author of all languages, and therefore experiences no language barrier. He is capable of articulating His Word in English without losing the perfection and power it had in the original languages. Second, God’s words are spirit, and His Spirit is not limited to a single language. We therefore conclude, on the premise of Psalm 12:6-7, that God has preserved both the perfection and the inspiration of His Word in the King James Bible.” Dr. Dennis Corle, God’s Inspired Book—The Bible, p.18

BIBLICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

 BIBLICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

 By James L. Melton

Throughout history it has been commonly believed that the ocean floors are basically smooth, like large hollowed-out bowls, but modern oceanographers know better. There are actually thousands of underwater mountains, called sea mounts, some even as high as 10,000 feet. How do you suppose the writer of the Book of Jonah had access to this information in 860 B.C.? Jonah 2:3-6 says, "For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the MOUNTAINS; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."

Apart from the tides, most have historically thought the oceans were like large still lakes without current. That is, until the 1800's when Matthew Fontaine Maury discovered RIVERS in the oceans. The Cromwell Current runs over thirteen thousand miles through the Pacific, and the Florida Current has over four thousand times the flow of the Mississippi. These "ocean rivers” were finally discovered because Dr. Maury insisted on believing Psalm 8:8 literally: "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the PATHS of the seas."

Today it is estimated that there are some thirty million trillion tons of water trapped beneath the earth's surface, and much of this water makes it's way up to the ocean floors in the form of sea springs. Although this is a fairly modern discovery, the Bible informed us of this thousands of years ago:

“Hast thou entered into the SPRINGS OF THE SEA? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" (Job 38:16)

 “When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the FOUNTAINS OF THE DEEP:" (Prov. 8:28)

  It is also known today that our ocean floors often contain giant canyons known as submarine canyons. Of course, this is nothing new. David had this knowledge in 1000 B.C.:

“And the CHANNELS OF THE SEA, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."

  As Doc always said, once in a while "science" catches up with the Bible.

  

Editions of the King James Bible

THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE 1611 A.V.

By James L. Melton

If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version", then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions". The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisers are just trying to justify their sins.

There were only four actual EDITIONS (not "revisions") of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations (like the new versions SINCE 1881), and they really weren't even "revisions".

The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.

The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.

Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!

Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established.

There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or ignorant--or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations did not start appearing until 1881 (RV) and 1901 (ASV). So if some wise guy asks you, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?", you can simply state that you have a 1769 EDITION of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.

Scrivener’s edition of the TR

 “In Scrivener We Trust”  

“My hope is built on nothing less –

than Scrivener’s edition, and the T.B.S. press –

I dare not fully trust the KJV,

But actually lean on Greek, you see!”

(motto & theme song of the “TR-only”, but NOT KJV-only “scholars”)

Whenever a “TR-only” man cites Greek, he usually points to Scrivener’s edition of the New Testament. And— to be fair, Scrivener’s is probably the best edition of any Greek New Testament, available today. However, it is NOT the “underlying text” of the AV1611. 

Here’s some reasons why:

1. Scrivener edited & engineered his Greek NT in 1881 (the KJV was first published in 1611).

2. In Scrivener’s original preface (1881 Cambridge University Press) he states this fact: “…the Authorised Version was not a translation of any one Greek text then in existence, and no Greek text intended to reproduce in any way the original of the Authorised Version has ever been printed.” --- See: Original Preface: https://assets.cambridge.org/97811080/24723/frontmatter/9781108024723_frontmatter.pdf 

3. In Scrivener’s original preface (1881 CUP), Scrivener indicates that he assumed the AV 1611 translators used Beza’s Greek NT more than any other, and thus, Scrivener collated from Beza (and a few others) as much as possible—HOWEVER, he also admitted--- “It was manifestly necessary to accept only Greek authority, though in some places the Authorised version corresponds but loosely with any form of the Greek original, while it exactly follows the Latin Vulgate.” (NOTE: the TBS editions available today, do not include Scrivener’s original preface, but rather claim the following falsehood in their edited preface— “The Textus Receptus printed in this volume is the Greek text followed by the translators of the English Authorised Version of the Bible first published in the year 1611.”  [“…this volume IS the Greek text…”???] …THIS claim is NOT TRUE! …Certainly it is very similar, as was Scrivener’s goal--- but it is not THE Greek text that the translators followed! …Is someone trying to sell “knock-off” copies of a Greek NT to desperate “TR-only” men???)

In 1881, Scrivener was trying to match a Greek text to the AV 1611, but he admitted that he could not always find a Greek text that actually matched the KJV, but instead, he did find that the Latin Vulgate matched the KJV, exactly. Therefore, in order to produce an “underlying Greek text” matching the KJV, one can only assume that Scrivener actually “back-translated” from either the Latin Vulgate, or the KJV, Itself, in said passages— in order to “reverse-engineer” his 1881 Greek edition. And, while the result is almost exactly the same in Greek, as It reads in the English, AV 1611--- there are some minor differences between Scrivener’s 1881, and the AV1611. So, which should we choose as the “final authority”? …Seriously? …Is it even a debate??? 

(NOTE: It is of little concern to me that the AV1611 DOES read exactly as the Latin Vulgate, in certain places---obviously, if the KJV translators found the Vulgate to be correct IN THOSE passages, then they left It, as is--- no harm done.)

But, here is where the harm is done—

Sadly, most “KJV Bible colleges” are using the “Scrivener TR” (the TBS edition— which doesn’t include his original preface, as found in the 1881 CUP edition, cited above). And, when a young Greek student in typical “IFB Bible college” sees his professor hold up a TBS Greek NT, and hears --- “this IS the TR underlying the AV 1611”, yet he discovers that “Scrivener’s TR” isn’t quite the same as the KJV--- a similar thought process happens---as what happens to Greek students at BJU, et al, when a student is convinced that the Nestles-Aland is the “true Greek”, and yet, it doesn’t match the KJV— DOUBT – DOUBT – DOUBT — Doubt upon the 1611 English translation of God’s Word. 

-For those students convinced that the UBS, Alexandrian, Nestles-Aland text is more trustworthy—touting these corrupted Greek MSS results in a complete rejection for the authority of the KJV, and its TR family of texts. 

-Similarly, for the student at the IFB college— it results in a wariness that the KJV is “still the best we’ve got in English”—but, should not be considered to be as authoritative as the “trusted Greek TR”—edited by Scrivener in 1881. This is what happened to Timothy Berg (and, no doubt, to countless other young men, once enrolled at “IFB Bible College”, who are now casualties to the “Greek-is-better-game”) – see here: https://kjbhistory.com/the-preface-to-the-greek-tr-of-f-h-a-scrivener/ 

Do I respect the TR family(the TRUE majority text)? Of course, I do. I believe that the vast majority of MSS within the TR family is obviously the correct lineage of Greek MSS, and the evidence is overwhelmingly on our side--- but, I am NOT “TR-only”— I am unashamedly, “KJV-only”. I reject the false teaching that God only preserved His Word in “the originals”, or, only in the “original languages”. Anyone who believes that, doesn’t really have a “Bible” = a single bound copy of God’s PRESERVED Word, that they can hold in their hand. Before I ever entered an “IFB Bible College”, my pastor warned me that today’s accepted Greek MSS remnants (the “originals” are gone) do NOT hold authority over the AV1611—praise God for faithful, Bible-believing pastors! 

THIS is why I refuse to play the “Greek game”… It’s like playing a game of “Greek cards”, without all of the cards. It is a lose-lose game, and it isn’t necessary--- we (today’s English speaking people) ALREADY have God’s Word. We don’t need to go backwards, searching for “something better”.

And, to all of my “TR-only” & “Scrivener TBS” friends, out there--- Mark Ward is grinning at you, from ear to ear---See for yourself:  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2021/11/23/is-the-textus-receptus-perfect-in-every-jot-and-tittle-henry-ambrose-vs-frederick-scrivener/ 

— Pastor Matt Furse

September 2023

Dr. Peter Ruckman on “Church of Christ” Campbellism

“You have to watch out when these Campbellites talk about “the gospel of Christ.” The gospel of Christ can be taken two ways. It can be the gospel about Christ, which is the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 and Galatians 1:6–9. Or you can have the gospel which Christ preached, which is the gospel of the kingdom in Matthew 4 and 24. They are not the same, and the baptisms that accompany them are not for the same purpose. You have to rightly divide those things, and no Campbellite does. Every Campbellite alive thinks that the “Gospel” is Acts 2:38, and it’s not.” — Dr. Peter Ruckman

Jeremiah 6:22 debunks the Flat Earth conspiracy theory

Flat Earth conspiracy theorists claim to be so Biblical, even though their conspiracy theory comes from New Age and pseudoscience YouTube videos. They are so caught up in YouTube that they miss what the Bible says about the Earth. 

Jeremiah 6:22 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The “circle of the earth” has a “north” and “sides”. A circle with sides would have to be a globe. Flat Earthers believe the Earth is a flat disc with an ice wall and dome over it, no people could come from the “sides” of their Earth model. 

By my count the word “flat” is only used 4 times in the Bible and none of those references are to the shape of the Earth. I understand that word “globe” is not in the Bible, but other terminology in the Bible references a round Earth. We see that in Jonah 2:5-6 “the deep” and the “earth and her bars” was “ROUND about” Jonah. Per Jonah 2:1-4, he was in “hell”. Ezekiel 31:16-17, 32:18, and 32:24 shows that hell is in the “nether parts of the earth”, or the “heart of the earth” as Christ said (Matt. 12:40). So if someone like Jonah is in the “heart”of the Earth, with the Earth “ROUND about” them, that sounds like a round Earth. Or in modern terms, a “globe” Earth.

“The Fake Asbury Revival” (David O’Steen)

 

Atheists accidentally prove creationism

 

An atheist shared this with the implication that the universe is not a good place and that a perfect God would not have created it to be so “deadly”. That is, Earth is the only habitable planet to our knowledge. Most of the universe is either too hot or too cold to support life. 

In my mind, this actually proves creation by God! If 99.99999… percent of the universe is deadly and does not promote life then we are certainly in a special place under miraculous circumstances. Atheists say that the Sun will burn out in the next 7 billion years and then Earth will no longer be able to support life. But we happen to be on it right now. Of course, we would not have to worry about that because they also say all the continents will erode in the next 2 billion years. But we just so happen to live on it right now. We do not have to worry about the continents eroding though, because they say a major asteroid could strike Earth within the next 200 years. But we just so happen to be living during a time where no major asteroids have collided with Earth. 

It seems to me that atheists believe in more miracles than Christians! 

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Ps. 14:1)

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” (Heb. 9:27) 

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:3-4) 

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

Dr. Peter Ruckman quotes on various topics

Here are some quotes from Dr. Peter Ruckman I found on social media. I may not agree with every detail of all of these statements, but I thought they were worth sharing. Unfortunately the original poster of these quotes did not include the sermons or books that they are found in. 

“Ah, the unsearchable riches of the King's English--minus the 'original Hebrew' and the 'original Greek.' How unsearchable are the revelations and truths of the Elizabethan English compared with 'THE' Greek text!" -Dr. Ruckman

"There are FOUR 'plans of salvation' in the book of Acts.

1. Water baptism necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, but no talking in tongues ( Acts 2:38 ). 

2. Laying on of hands necessary for receiving the Holy Spirit, but no talking in tongues ( Acts 8:17 ). 

3. Salvation with baptism, but laying-on of hands before talking in tongues (Acts 19:1-9).

4. Salvation without water baptism, talking in tongues, or laying on of hands (Acts 8:37)." -Dr. Ruckman 

"You must face it, if you are going to teach "dispensational truth," there ARE more than 200 verses in the New Testament that cannot apply doctrinally to a born-again believer in the Body of Christ." -Dr. Ruckman

"In the Tribulation, if any man ('any') takes the mark of the beast or the 'number of his name,' he goes into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 14:10-11). Suppose he 'believes on Christ' (like the Philippian jailor) and then takes the mark? Does he go to heaven in the Tribulation? He doesn’t. He loses his salvation, just like that bird in Mathew 25:30 lost his. And he DID lose it." -Dr. Ruckman

"In the Tribulation, there seems to be two 'plans' of salvation operating. One of these is a Gentile 'gospel' (Rev. 14:6-7), which is contingent on CONSCIENCE, and not taking the mark of the beast. The other is a Jewish 'gospel' (Rev. 12) which is contingent on observing the Commandments in the Pentateuch (including sacrifices and temple worship--Rev. 11:1-3), and not taking the mark of the beast." -Dr. Ruckman

"Every heresy in this age is THE TRUTH misplaced. Every theological LIE in this age is a Biblical TRUTH misplaced" -Dr. Ruckman

"The Book says what it means and means what it says, as it says it, in the context in which it says it." -Dr. Ruckman

"In this age the only "good news" (gospel) is the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24). Every false teaching in this age comes from diluting this gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-5) with works of some kind (see Rom. 4:1-8). Paul said a man is "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) if he teaches Acts 2:38 or the Sermon on the on the Mount" as a "plan of salvation" (see Rom. 10:1-14). " -Dr. Ruckman

"Salvation in the Tribulation "Faith Plus Works”. Since this is not the time of the Church's trouble, but "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30:7), the law comes back in into effect (see Rev. 12:17 and 14:12) for Israel (see Matt. 24:15, 20). A man must "endure unto the end" (Matt. 24:13) and not take "the mark" (Rev. 13:1-18, 12:10-12). In this period, "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24, 15:1) is not preached. An "everlasting gospel" is preached to Gentiles (Rev. 14:6) and the gospel of "the kingdom of heaven" is preached to Israel (see rMatt. 24:13-15, 3:2, 4:17, 6:10, 7:21, 8:11, 10:7, 11:11, 13:11, 24)." Dr. Ruckman

"Salvation in the Millennium 'Works Only' (Matt. 5-7) The word "faith" only occurs one time in the 'Sermon on the Mount,' and then it is not a reference to salvation (Matt. 6:30). (Psa. 24:1-7; Matt. 25) Christ is visibly present (Isa. 2; Zech. 14). No one is 'walking by faith.' All are walking by sight (2 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 8:24).  Christ is on the throne at Jerusalem (Luke 1:30-33; Jer. 33:17; Matt. 25:30-33), which explains Psalm 76:3 and Haggai 2:9. Jerusalem means 'city of peace' (see Zech. 14:1-12)." -Dr. Ruckman

“Technically speaking, there is no New Testament minimum to give. Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in tithing. I think any New Testament Christian under grace ought to do as much as Old Testament Jew under the Law. I think God gave you examples of tithing, before the Law, in Abraham (Gen. 14) and Jacob (Gen. 28). The Lord did not start blessing me financially, after my salvation, until I began to tithe. But in the final analysis, New Testament giving lies between you and the Lord. You have to settle in your heart with the Lord what you are going to do, and He is going to reward you according to how you and He work the thing out. In my way of thinking, the trick is to find out how much you can give and get away with it." -Dr. Ruckman

"I have always taught that the tithe was the minimum. I say that God is entitled to 10 percent as a token gesture, and then, after that, you start to give." -Dr. Ruckman

“Do you think God loves murderers? You say, 'Well He died…'. That's past tense. I said do you think he loves them, present tense? Aw, He still loves them.' Then why do they go to Hell when they die? You say, 'They don't go to Hell when they die.' They do if they don't accept the love He offered them at Calvary." -Dr. Ruckman

Human evolution crumbles again: early hominins newly discovered in Turkey

“The discovery of an ancient ape skull may challenge the long-held belief that the ancestors of apes and humans came from Africa, a controversial new study says.

The partial skull of the ape, called an Anadoluvius turkae, was found in Cankiri, Turkey, and appears to date back to 8.7 million years ago, Live Science reported.

Meanwhile early hominins, which include humans, the African apes, and their fossil ancestors, are not seen in Africa until around seven million years ago.

The discovery challenges the widely-held view that the ancestors of African apes and humans originated exclusively in Africa.

Researchers say that this suggests that hominins might have first evolved in Europe before migrating to Africa.”

The article starts off by saying, “The discovery of an ancient ape skull may challenge the long-held belief that the ancestors of apes and humans came from Africa.” May challenge? Well it certainly does challenge it. We are talking about an over 20% difference in the timeline and a completely different part of the world. Yet those who hold to evolutionary theory are so certain of the accuracy of their dating methods. So if the skull (by their dating methods) is truly 8.7 millions old, how could this not definitely challenge the long held belief that humans evolved first in Africa? The full article (see here https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/an-8-7-million-year-old-ape-skull-suggests-that-human-and-ape-ancestors-may-have-evolved-in-europe-not-africa/ar-AA1gb8dI?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=ed9b74db6860471aa2151cdd7344934c&ei=42#interstitial=1 ) says, “Not all scientists are convinced by the theory” and that this is “controversial”. Why is it controversial? If the dating methods used by secular scientists are so accurate then why is this not convincing evidence that humans evolved first outside of Africa? It is controversial because it disagrees with the mainstream secular narrative of human evolution. If a fact or piece of evidence contradicts evolution, then they say the facts are wrong. But it is their dating methods that are contradicting their own narrative of human evolution. Neodarwinists cherry pick evidence even using their own dating methods to hold up their theories. 

The article goes on to say:

“This new evidence supports the hypothesis that hominins originated in Europe and dispersed into Africa along with many other mammals between nine and seven million years ago, though it does not definitively prove it.

In order to prove this, more fossils from Europe and Africa would need to be found from between seven and eight million years ago to try and find a link between the two groups, he added.” 

They say “more fossils” need to be found to prove the theory that humans evolved first outside of Africa. But if the one fossil truly is 8.7 million years old then why do they need more proof? They are leaving something out. For one fossil to not be “proof” enough, then that means they either do not have confidence in the dating method or they do not have confidence that the skull fragment is truly that of an ape. All it takes is 1 definite hominin and 1 definite date of 8.7 millions years to throw out the old theory, which is that early hominins originated in Africa 7 million years ago. 

What about Christian rock and rap?

An independent Baptist preacher said recently: 

“ The “hymns only crowd” is just as much of an extreme as the “contemporary only crowd”. 

You don’t hear brothers in Christ fighting over food.  They’ll attack you for listening to a contemporary song, but go down to McDonald’s and get 3 Big Macs and a large Coke with no hesitation. 

There are some songs that are bad for your Christian walk, there is some food that is bad for your health, but not all songs and all food are bad in moderation.  Everybody has an opinion. Using scripture to teach an opinion is dangerous.  

I proudly listen to some contemporary songs that are intricate in song writing, talent and biblically sound. A lot of them have a rock beat. 

As a Pastor I’d never let drums into my church, but it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t listen to a song with drums. 

Quit being ridiculous and yelling at people who listen to contemporary music. It’s a strawman argument.  There’s no definitive scripture that is in context that teaches what these people claim. You can have an opinion and a rule for your church, but you cannot call it “doctrine”.”

My perspective is that if rock music is wrong and rap music is wrong, why try to polish it up and make it ‘Christian’? It is obvious that the people who developed “Christian rap” and “Christian rock” were fans of worldly music and were attempting to make the church’s music sound more like it, whether it was for their own flesh’s entertainment or to try to appeal to worldly people. We have been told to “come out from among them” and “be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). I would say that adapting our music to sound like the world’s music is not following Romans 12:2 “be not conformed to this world”. We are also commanded to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thes. 5:22).  

I do agree that the main thing is for the words of  the song to reflect sound doctrine that praises God, and some new music does that. But the exception proves the rule. Most of the newer songs do not hold a candle to the old hymns as far as meaning and doctrine. This is not to say that all hymns are good. A lot of hymns are not dispensationally correct doctrinally speaking. And this is not to say that any new song is bad. I am speaking about “church” music designed to sound like rock or rap.

God created music for His honor and worship before the world began (Ezek. 28:13, Job 38:7). When you see His music in the Bible, it always worships Him for His works, His character, and provokes thanksgiving and fear of Him in those singing it. Worldly music is designed to appeal to the flesh. You can contrast the song of Moses “unto the LORD” in Exodus 15 with the “noise of the people” sung in Exodus 32 in connection with idolatry and immorality. 

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Exodus 32:

[17] And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.
[18] And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

[19] And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 

I am not saying that all of man’s music is worshipping idols or is connected to immorality, but it is safe to say that a lot of it is. Most rock, rap, country, etc expresses desire for fleshly lusts such as alcohol, drugs, money, sexual immorality, covetousness, etc. 

At best, worldly music offers worldly wisdom to make us feel better about worldly problems and rejoice in things other than the Lord. 

1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

1 Corinthians 7:31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

1 Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I think if we consider these principles in music, it will eliminate a lot of music other than hymns. “But let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). 

“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen…” (Jer. 10:2)

Are you “saved” or “being saved”? KJV vs the modern versions

 

THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."

Because the Authorized Version is the "last" English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible -- it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the "Morning Star of the Reformation" for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe's New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: "I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: "Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare."

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he "perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text." The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."

Although Tyndale's English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree "that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction." Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale's Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther's Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale's second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale's New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it "better than any other translation heretofore made." And so it happened that Tyndale's translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King's permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were "set forth with the King's most gracious license," the Great Bible was the first "authorized" Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell's injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church."

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew's Bible. It appeared under the title of: "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner." He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament -- the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops' Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen's recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that "all the English versions are most corrupt." The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops', Douay-Rheims, and King James -- ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible -- just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew's Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible -- three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

Or have they?

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all -- even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.