For additional Bible studies, go to
BIBLE BELIEVERS REPORT
MAY 19, 2017
Share the gospel using Chick online tracts!
Click below to view this week’s tract, THE ATTACK.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Our first article this week comes to us from Chick Publications. It concerns the verses above which have been changed in the newer English versions of the Bible. You can learn more about this ministry at www.Chick.com.
By David W. Daniels
A sister in the Lord had a question the other day about the Incarnation. It boiled down to how and when the Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. It's an excellent question. I asked her to grab her King James and her NIV.
Modern Bibles remove four important words that clarify an entire doctrine about Jesus being God and man, John 3:12-13. "...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Jesus was at that very moment talking with Nicodemus. He was also in heaven at that very moment.
Twenty-seven modern Bibles completely removed those four words. Four modern Bibles rewrote them, so Jesus was God in heaven, but isn't now. This was the first verse that I had in mind to show her. And if you look in 31 modern Bibles, including ALL NIV-types: NIrV, TNIV, NIV 84 and NIV 2011, the doctrine is GONE.
But there is a second verse I like to use. In the King James it shows that Jesus Christ was God, who added on the form of a human body. Philippians 2:5-9: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God..."
Jesus' position in the Godhead is not something He stole. He took nothing away from the Father or the Holy Ghost. The Son has His own position, His own part in the Godhead. The Son is the One who added something to Himself. He added the form of a human being.
Verse 7: "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" The Lord didn't come with fanfare. He told people who had no major reputation the most important news of all: GOD has come to the earth to be born!
He made Himself of no reputation. Let me stop there and compare it to the NIV. The NIV, 1984 and 2011, the NIrV and TNIV all say the same thing: "he made himself nothing."
But in the King James, only His reputation is removed. So, you know, the Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, Geneva and Bishops Bibles also say, "He made Himself of no reputation." So, this was by no means a new idea. Making himself nothing, however, was a very new idea, thanks to the NIV. In the King James, Jesus took on a distinct human form, and took on flesh, as well. This makes perfect sense out of John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
Christ adding to Himself is also why it says in verse 8, "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
So, Jesus not only humbled Himself to add on a human body, He also humbled Himself and obeyed His Father, to the point of paying for all of our sins by dying on the cross.
Then it says, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:" So God couldn't make His son "more God," obviously. But his "Name," His "reputation," couldn't be higher. And not because of who Jesus is, but because of what He has done.
Because God the Father's Son bore the shame and humiliation of death on a cross, God gave Him a Name which is above every name. "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:10
The generation that is fed on the NIV and rejects the KJV will lose vital understanding of who Jesus was, and is.
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. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
The current discussion concerning the origins and preservation of the Holy Scriptures, in the end, finally boils down to three questions. While it is a little shocking to learn just how many who claim to be Bible scholars feel that parts of the Bible are simply myth, this actually only shows the extent of the unbelief that is currently infecting the church in our day. With that in mind, let me share these three questions, along with the answers to them as given by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones, a Bible believing scholar.
1. Would God inspire the text of the Holy Scriptures and then allow it to become lost?
"Within our diverse denominational backgrounds are found various confessions of faith. These statements of faith concerning the Holy Scriptures, particularly within conservative evangelical backgrounds, always say something to the effect that we believe that God gave the original Scriptures inerrant. We profess to believe in the originals, that they were divinely inspired by God - God breathed. Now we say that, intending it as a statement of faith, but we shall soon come to see that it is in reality a statement of unbelief!"
In other words, to believe that God only inspired the originals is to actually say that there was once a group of writings, which were never collected in one place at one time, which, if they had been brought together would have created a divinely inspired Bible. The facts of history prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the originals of all the books are not to be found existing at the same time at any point in history. This would also mean that the divinely inspired word of God no longer exists anywhere on the earth today. It would seem that this would leave us on the horns of a dilemma, unless we expand our original belief to included faithful copies and translations of those selfsame originals are also to be considered the word of God.
2. If God did inspire the texts of the Holy Scriptures, would He not preserve it?
"The New Testament was written in Greek whereas the Old Testament was mostly authored in Hebrew. It may surprise many to learn that there are no original manuscripts of the Bible available today. The Old Testament scribes destroyed the scrolls upon which Scripture was written as they became worn, and "dog eared" from so much handling. When they copied out a new one, they destroyed the old so that the earliest Old Testament manuscript now in existence is dated about 900 AD. This is called the Hebrew Masoretic Text. It was the earliest witness to the text of the O.T. that we possessed until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain some parts of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah. Likewise, we possess no "original" New Testament manuscripts - none of the "autographs" which the apostles wrote have been preserved."
Does God's inspired word still exist on the earth today? Many modern textual critics would have us believe that indeed it does not. Thus, the door is left open for any liberal doctrines to take the place of divine authority. Who would want such a situation to exist? Would God, or would the devil want to plant such doubts in the minds of the church to destroy their belief in the Holy Scriptures? Are the truths of the church now to be determined by a vote of the present membership of the church? Keep in mind that, while modern liberal theology has many strongholds in the world today, the vast majority of Christians throughout history have been Bible believers who truly believed that God literally means what he teaches us in the Bible. Thus, if we take a vote of all Christians in all ages would prove very different. In fact, I believe that if we polled all Christians today, the vote would also come out the same, but that is beside the point. The point is if our God promised to preserve His word, as He does many times in the Bible, is He powerful enough to pull it off or not?
3. Is Satan circulating counterfeits of the originals to undermine the faith of the church?
"Is there someone who has always hated God's Word, wanted to destroy it, and has attempted to cloud man's mind and heart about its validity? In other words, as we read the Bible, is there any evidence that somebody has founded a "Yea, has God said" society?
According to Genesis 3:1, Bible corruption began with Satan. Satan is the original Bible reviser. When he confronted Eve in the garden, he added to God's Word, he subtracted, he diluted and finally substituted his own doctrine for that which God had said.
We find this occurring today. People are trying to add books to the Old and subtract words from the New Testament. Nothing has changed. We need to understand that the devil is promoting this continuing attack on the Word of God."
Here we come to what I believe is the true heart of the matter. If Satan exists, as the Bible plainly teaches he does, does he have a stake in this matter? Does he want us to believe that the sword of the Spirit is still available to us today, or would he prefer for us to accept the belief that our main weapon against him wastes away many years ago among the parchments of long ago? These are all questions we all need to ask as we attempt to separate the wheat from the tares in this matter.
For instance, the "To the Reader" section of the 1611 KJV is not found in current editions of the Bible. There is a very good reason for this.
When the 1611 KJV was translated, as a concession to the Romanists in the church, the Apocrypha was included in a separate section from the Old and New Testaments. The title page of the Bible has a clear statement; "The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments". Notice that the Apocrypha is not mentioned here. It is not a part of the Holy Bible. Neither is the "To the Reader" section. This section also contains statements that were concessions to the Romanists. God ordained the Old and New Testaments. He did not ordain the Apocrypha nor the "To the Reader" section although they were included in the first edition. How can this seeming contradiction be explained?
The answer can be found by simply returning to the title page, where it clearly states that the Holy Bible is "translated out of the original tongues". The original tongue of the Old Testament is Hebrew. The
original tongue of the New Testament is Greek. Please note that the statement on the title page completely contradicts the Romanists positions already mentioned in the "To the Reader" section.
Also, please note that the Apocrypha and the "To the Reader" sections were removed from later editions of the Bible while the title page still remains as a clear witness in the KJV today. Stated simply, the Romanist concessions have been removed, and were never part of the Holy Bible as it clearly states on the title page.
The remaining question then is how could God use men to faithfully translate the Holy Bible into English when they compromised in these other areas. One of the great truths of the Bible is that, with the exception of Jesus Christ, every person who was ever used of God also failed God at one time or the other. The same is true of you. The same is true of me. The same is true of every person who ever lived, including the translators of the 1611 KJV.
This brings us to our Bible Believers question of the week. What is a “Biblicist”? God bless. MARANATHA!
We want to minister to your
THERE ARE LOTS OF FREE GIFTS,
hidden throughout this website so,