“Civil war has erupted at the top of the Catholic Church, with 13 ­cardinals, including Australia’s George Pell, warning the Pope in a letter that the church is in ­danger of collapsing like liberal Protestant churches in the modern era.”

(The Australian, 14 Oct. 2015)

It is interesting to note that even the Romanists recognise the great damage that has occurred in Protestant churches as they have compromised with Modernism, Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology.

And what else should we expect from the two-horned lamb, which represents the Papacy in this time, and the conjoining of both conservative and liberal Catholics. One of the those two horns is a symbol for the compromise that Romanism and the Papacy have made with modern Infidelity.

“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.” (Revelation 13:11).

Modern Infidelity can be linked with the German Jesuit-turned secularist, Adam Weishaupt (besides Descartes, Voltaire and the rest of the mob). Those ideas coming into the Jacobin Club in France helped the French Revolution, and the French Republic marched on Rome, took the Pope prisoner, and then, under Bonaparte, a Concordat was struck in 1801, which began the union of modern Infidelity and the Papacy.

So, the “warning” from a cardinal is hardly going to make a difference, the Roman Catholic religious system was already spiritually bankrupt, and now it cannot undo the bonds it has made with the secularising influence of modern Infidelity.

The only hope for any Roman Catholic to be free from the error of Modernism is to convert to the true and sincere Protestant faith. A genuine revival of the true and properly reformed Christian faith is going to be the answer to the constant ideological warfare conducted by left-wing anti-patriots like the Jesuit “Eureka Street” and other such enemies.

“And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (2 Corinthians 6:16, 17).

Sometimes there is “debate” between people like myself, who uphold that the King James Bible is perfect, and others, who deny this, but who support modern versions as superior.

One of them said about me:

“Matthew’s approach is complex, deeply thought through, and clearly he has spent a lot of time on it. But the one thing he cannot show, apart from torturing some verses into submission, is that his claims are actually taught by the bible. Could Matthew’s view be correct? Of course. But let’s not kid ourselves… His view is not correct because it’s somehow in the bible. I prefer to base my doctrine on the bible, and not on one man’s opinion.”

I have asked him and his fellow modern version users what is the Scriptural and Bible-doctrinal basis for their view of transmission.

Another modern version supporter (who in practice is very much against the King James Bible) told me:

“That’s because Scripture says nothing about transmission. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nadda. Nor should we expect it to. It only asserts that heaven and earth will pass away, but ‘my words will never pass away.’ Big difference.”

I replied: “So, all this time mocking KJBO, yet you have NO Scripture. You openly say that it says NOTHING about transmission?!?!? So, where do you derive your views on transmission then, if not from Scripture? Oh, yes, the influence of Enlightenment philosophy.”

Continue reading →

There are essentially four views in regard to how we approach the Biblical text:
1. Tradition (e.g. Vulgate), i.e. what has passed down ecclesiastically
2. Reception (e.g. Textus Receptus), i.e. what has come to us through divine providence
3. Majority (e.g. Majority Text), i.e. what can be discerned empirically to have the most and best attestation
4. Reason (e.g. Modern Critical Text), i.e. what can be discerned rationally from eclectic sources to have the most probable primacy

Pure tradition was rejected in the Reformation, as tradition plus a believing analysis of afforded limited information was thought to be a sufficient basis for arriving at a correct text.

The Majority view and the Reason views put emphasis on what humans know, that is, as more manuscripts were discovered, it could be better known to the human mind what was probably the correct, original reading.

The King James Bible Only view is on the spectrum at 2. The Byzantine tradition is going from 1 to 4, while neo-Byzantine tradition is at number 3.
Continue reading →

One modern textual critic told me, “The difference between KJV Onlyists and the rest of Protestantism is that we believe in the God who overcomes human error, while you believe in the one who must prevent it.”

What he means is that he thinks God is at work, despite human error; whereas, he thinks that we think the work of God is to stop human error.

This is not quite right: modern versionists believe in prevailing error, though at least some believe that God is scarcely saving them. They also wrongly think that we think that basically God made the KJB by divine inspiration.

Here is what I concluded in my response:

God does not prevent human error, it exists. We just deny its right to rule over us.

“and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4b).

Continue reading →

I heard a recording of a young fellow who was trying to preach about faith get hopelessly confused by saying that the opposite of faith is the law. According to his view, the opposite is not doubt, not unbelief, but the law! Perhaps he doesn’t realise, but the word “obedience” is only in the New Testament!

Here’s the truth:

1. We keep the law by faith, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God” (Rom. 7:25b). “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:4).

2. As Christians, we are supposed to do works, “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20).

3. Faith believing is a work, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29).

It is true that you cannot earn salvation by works. And it would be correct to point out that faith does not mean doing things merely in human strength. Confessing the victory needs to come out of a believing heart, otherwise making a thousand confessions is meaningless. But faith demands effort, there is no such thing as having faith but being passive. Resting in God is an active decision, not an excuse for laziness or apathy.

In the computer age, English is the standard, and Greek not. One evidence for this is the fact that the diacritic symbols required for Greek are more complex than the standard English (i.e. US) (i.e. Latin character) keyboard, and are down deep in the unicode set for font characters/symbols. Even if a font were to substitute the normal alphabet for Greek, the two different symbols used for “s” cannot both be used, “σ” (sigma) and “ς” (stigma).

The fact is Greek is not more holy, nor is Greek more conversant than English. It was a Reformation principle to bring the Scripture from Greek to English. It’s in English now.

All those Christian materials that are being made that say, “now the Greek word at this place is ____ and that means _____ and _____ or ______” are really needless statements, especially considering that the Scripture already has been translated from Greek since the Reformation, makes sense, and has served the Church for centuries. This “I know Greek” attitude seems akin to the Mediaeval pride of knowing Latin. The Protestant Church needs to get this issue fixed up, otherwise the Russians will say, “We know Greek better than you, your understanding and interpretation is wrong”, and many be sword-cut, flamed, captivated and spoiled.

Despite the efforts of Greek immigrants, the succeeding generations are no longer retaining the use of Greek. This progressively strengthens the argument that English can be used in preaching to them.

JESUS AND THE GENTILES

In Isaiah 42:1–6, there is a prophecy about Jesus. It is known to be a prophecy of Jesus because Matthew, in his Gospel, quotes it, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,” … (Matthew 12:17).

There are plenty of prophecies in the Old Testament which were pointing to Christ’s first coming. “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Luke 24:44). And, “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (verse 45).

But the writings in the Old Testament, including prophecies, were not just about Jesus’ first coming. This is indicated in Romans 15:4, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” Many other verses likewise agree, that the Scripture is for us, and relates to things regarding us.

Continue reading →

Psalm 12, like plenty of other Psalms have both a Davidic-historical-general mode of interpretation, as well as a prophecy-future-specific fulfilment.

Psalm 12:7 “this generation for ever.”

This can mean from David’s time in the first way of interpreting. But we must remember, the Scripture is from the Holy Ghost: you shouldn’t just limit it to the milieu, perspective, culture, time, context or mindset of David.

Continue reading →

It is my belief that foundational to the return of Christ (without getting into a debate about the specifics of that), there needs to be first the perfect text and translation in a Bible version common for the world, and a restoration thereof.

Ac 3:21 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.

The first step in God’s restitution, before Jesus comes (read the passage in Acts 3) is that obvious His Word needs to be restored, and that included the idea of having knowledge of the exact words (the text), the the exact sense (the translation), etc., and that we are bereft of options (the modernists are against this idea) leaving the only contender fitting in on every level and in every way being the King James Bible.

Continue reading →