Category Archives: Review

Don’t go to the Leftist Modernists for Bible interpretation

A Modernist Bible theologian was given a run in the media recently (Australia’s Channel 10 and ABC) because she promoted the view of the Left.

Another way of saying it is that the Left and Modernism back each other up. In her article about Bible interpretation which was subtitled “the Bible isn’t meant to be read that literally”, she took every opportunity to reinterpret Scripture with a Modernist bias.

For example, her article says, “Reading the Bible to determine the shape of contemporary marriage is not an easy task.” In other words, she is willingly seeking to redefine the Bible in the light of her present day beliefs. She writes, “Much of the Bible was written 2,500 years ago, when family life was very different.” Really? In 483 BC, the last of the Old Testament was being written, and it says,

(MALACHI CHAPTER 2.)
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Sounds like normal family life was going on. It’s pretty clear God wants husbands and wives to love each other.

But Modernist theologians want to read in their present day values into the past. “Most likely, Jesus’s concern in speaking against divorce was for the vulnerable place in which it left women, given they could not usually earn their own money or inherit.” Pure speculation! It is a contradiction to Scripture to assert something it did not say.

But this leads to an important controversy. A woman theologian attacking a woman pastor. The theologian says, “Indeed, if Ms Court applied the literalism with which she reads Genesis to the whole of the Bible, she’d find herself in hot water, since 1 Timothy 2:12 explicitly forbids women teaching or having any authority over men. This kind of culturally bound ideology is precisely why biblical scholars and mainstream Christian churches do not adhere to a literal interpretation of this ancient and diverse text.”

Notice how the Bible is smeared as an “ancient and diverse text” meaning “irrelevant and inconsistent”.

Actually, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not “literally” explicitly forbid a woman from teaching a (i.e. any) man, it in fact says that a woman shouldn’t be teaching her husband (i.e. domineering her husband). That’s pretty different from what is being interpreted as a supposed “literal” interpretation. Otherwise, we would have to ban lady teachers at colleges and universities. So, obviously the Scripture is to be read literally. And if literally in Paul, then literally in Genesis.

Why deny that the Bible says that God created or that there was a great flood or that Sodom was destroyed? That’s literally what the Bible says. Yet when a person who has the Leftist Modernist interpretation which changes everything to suit the desires of sinners, then they are given a run in the media as if they are right.

“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26).

Islamic-Russian twisted view of Gog and Magog

According to Islamic scholar, Imran Hosein, when speaking on a Russian website, told his Russian audience (in English) that “Gog and Magog” are apparently Western Israel-supporting Christians, and “antichrist” apparently has come through the British Empire, USA and Israel.


According to the Bible, Gog the leader of Magog, is to come from the north, and fits in with Russia. As for “antichrist”, that certainly is not something in English-speaking Christianity, though there are obviously those who depart from the faith who are antichrists.

These accusations about “Gog and Magog” and “antichrist” from the Islamic-Russian view are nothing more than an attempt to identify God’s true people as the enemy.

We can take comfort from Matthew chapter 5.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Alex Jones with Alexander Dugin

Source: http://tsargrad.tv/article/2016/12/21/aleks-dzhons-na-trampa-gotovitsja-pokushenie (in Russian).

Truth is plainly written in the Scripture. It states, “he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.” (Daniel 11:30b). We are seeing all the things come into place in time and space that will fulfil this prophecy.

Attacking the greatness of Protestant English-speaking America with all kinds of bizarre conspiracy theories while not presenting the Gospel as the true remedy to rampant liberalism, infidelity and left-wing error is a big problem.

Of course, Russia is setting its greedy eyes upon Turkey, and the West can still resist the Russian bear at the moment… but for how long will there be Britons true, and the guns, men and money of the Americans too?

Our national identity and outlook of the world must be firmly based upon Scripture. While extremism may be on the ascent in Russia, and spreading fear within through internet propagandists, we can safely assert the correct interpretation of world events, and have hope through the Holy Ghost.

Alex Jones says that we are in a civil war, an information war. Dugin agrees.

But this war is really about whether the Scripture is true in what it says. Did Ezekiel and Daniel long ages ago really get it all right? do we really have every word of the prophets exactly accurately here in English that we can rely upon? is our believing-based interpretation correct?

The answer is yes, because very soon, certain nations are going to be agreeing with the true believers on this: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?” (Eze. 38:17).

That question cannot be asked without believers publicising the truth, accuracy and content of Scripture. The Scripture then is the most powerful weapon, a spiritual information sword, that can cut down any demagogue. Remember Alexander the not so Great after all.

Aleksandr Dugin questions truth

Aleksandr Dugin, Russian political scientist, philosopher and upcoming voice of antichristianism, made the following points in a BBC interview:

1. Truth is relative.
2. If we insist that we have absolute truth, he would say that his truth is 100% true.
3. There are no facts, only interpretation.

This is a highly dangerous philosophy which stems from Enlightenment thinking, just as Thomas Paine insisted that his own mind was his own religion, now Dugin is giving the ultimate end of all modernistic philosophy which is that there is no universal, objective truth, just individual belief. In other words, what he says and believes is true is true. Not just true for him, but we cannot question someone else’s truth.

How can Dugin ever claim to have something superior to Western thought when, like Antiochus Epiphanes and Mohammad, his particular view is just an extreme fascist perversion of Western philosophical errors? After all, Antiochus took Western paganistic Jupiter-worship and perverted it to his own religion as forced upon the Jews. Again, Mohammad did nothing but take Ebionism and other heretical versions of Judaeo-Christianity and likewise perverted it to his own religion as forced upon Jews and Christians.

Dugin’s view is an Enlightenment view, as much as he might claim to be against Western liberalism.

Ecclesiastes 1:9, 10,

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

If you are a born again Protestant Bible believing Christian you really need to believe, not only that there is an absolute truth, but also that Jesus promised us (from the Father) the means of absolute interpretation, the Holy Ghost.

Dugin seems more and more like that little horn, even sharing a name with the former big horn of the goat in Daniel 8, Alexander the Great.

Quick review on “Is the KJB the only inspired Scripture on Earth today?” debate.

In late 2015, a written debate took place asking the question, “Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today?”

There are some who are so committed to an erroneous, non-faith view of Bible transmission, that they will stoop to any low (I have seen this consistently) in their attack on the King James Bible.

The very debate question itself is a falsehood. Those who uphold the King James Bible do not uphold it as the “only inspired Scripture on Earth today”.

This is because the Scripture was given by an inspiration process ONCE with the original writings. And second, all faithful transmission of Scripture is providing and preserving those inspired words. That means that someone who had a some Swahili translation back in the early 1800s must have had the inspired words of God, because the Scripture words are inspired, despite having passed from one language to another.

On this first basis some attack and wish to malign those who uphold the King James Bible, because several ignorant or misguided individuals have claimed a special inspiration for the King James Bible, as though it was made by inspiration from 1605-1611. That is, of course, nonsense.

So while the proponent of the King James Bible in the debate (Will Kinney) presented the case with Scriptures, those against spent all their time trying to make the KJB appear merely the product of men. They spared nothing to imply that the KJB must be wrong because of printing errors. Except, they argue, these weren’t printing errors, but deliberate choices by the translators that were wrong.

The entire flimsy argumentation that they employed against the King James Bible basically tries to make out that the drafts of the KJB show that the KJB translators’ work is not the work we have today. This is an entire fabrication. One alleged draft document was known in the time of Westcott, a leading agent against the King James Bible in 1881, yet Westcott described this alleged draft as in fact a comparison work between old versions. We read from first hand examiners (e.g. Ward Allen) that there are many annotations in that copy which were never printed in the KJB at any time.

Really what happens is those against the KJB turn to every source that takes an unbelieving, naturalistic interpretation: they will heed David Norton when he alleges changes to the KJB, such as the totally obvious typographical error at Hosea 6:5 “Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets” which in 1611 was accidentally printed “shewed”. Apparently (like some sort of elaborate conspiracy), it was really supposed to be “shewed”.

This is the level of those who dishonestly and unashamedly attack the grand old King James Bible. They wish us to be some sort of hill-billies while they, with their “science falsely so called”, wish to tear and abuse the KJB at any cost.

Bible Revisionist MKO shocked about PCE

A Bible Revisionist (who attempted to alter the King James Bible throughout) known as “MKO” has posted on a viciously anti-King James Bible only forum that he is surprised how much the PCE has been accepted. Of course he and his friends cannot refrain from making all kinds of false accusations, including trying to link the PCE with Mormonism and even suggesting that we are one step away from saying that certain type-fonts are authentic. It seems that this “MKO” spent years trying to make his revision, which is, of course, unacceptable (and is languishing in obscurity).

Instead of staying with the time-honoured and accepted standards of King James Bible words, spelling and punctuation, he fiddled here and there, even using the Tomson Version as a reference to make changes!

“Although based predominantly on the original 1611 text with ye olde englysshe spellynge, the punctuation and spelling are both thoroughly modernized to 2008/2015 standards, which differentiates this edition from versions which are modernized to 1769 standards (as most current editions are). I understand some people will absolutely fault me for this choice, as well as for some of the editorial decisions I made; all the decisions I made were made to the best of my ability and knowledge, although some may say I took some liberty with the text.”

The warning here is: “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28). That’s why we need to stick with the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.

A new strong Russia

ANDREW BOLT: John, it struck me, that the only reason Russia, alone on the Security Council, would vote to stop an independent inquiry into how that plane was shot down (Australians died), is that it knows who shot it down, and it knows it would be fingered.

JOHN ROSKAM: And that sounds right. And what Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop have done is outstanding; it has led the world; Australians should be proud of what we’ve done. And what Russia’s done is just so disappointing.

ANDREW BOLT: But it’s [a] frightening glimpse into what a new strong Russia — its role in the world.

JOHN ROSKAM: A new geo-politics of Russia in the Ukraine, Russia in Eastern Europe, facing a weakened, softened United States.

ANDREW BOLT: A deliberately weakened and softened United States.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/video/id-pxMjFudjry8hL9nQib2Db8Rqdp8zE5IV/PANEL-TWO