The Reformation was about getting the Word of God into English.

However, many misguided teachers say that the real truth is in Hebrew and Greek.

So they use lexicons (which define the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words), or think that they are advantaged by learning Hebrew and Greek themselves.

Alan E. Kurschner, a supporter of Hebrew and Greek studies, admitted the relativism, subjectivity and fatal weakness of this approach. He wrote, “that’s right they are fallible, including Hebrew and Greek lexicons! I often hear people cite … lexicons as if they are inspired and descended gold-plated from the Greek gods themselves. Lexicons are interpretive; and just like commentaries they often repeat each other.”

Continue reading →

The Calvinist says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic”.

The first error the Calvinist makes is to claim that because God initially used Hebrew and Greek, that those languages are somehow more specially, or are the specific method of conveying the truth to the world.

That was certainly not the view of King James Bible translators, who said that the Scripture in English was the Word of God.

Continue reading →

The following are a series of questions about Bible versions adapted from http://www.biblediscernment.com/research.html

I have made some comments.

Have you done research on the KJB, modern versions and related controversies?

There is a fair degree of ignorance in the debate on modern versions, and the ignorance is on both sides of the KJB versus modern versions. Often, however, I find that the people against the KJB rely on extremely narrow sources, such as James White’s book against King James Bible Only, which often mischaracterises the debate and is heavily biased and non-analytical in its approach.

Continue reading →

The scholars say that you need to know the GRAMMATICAL meaning of Scripture. They look at the Scripture as made up of words. They go to their Greek, and they define what they think each word means, and how those words connect together grammatically.

The scholars say that you need to know the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Scripture, so that the reader can understand what was being communicated according to the mind of the original audience. So they extrapolate based on Jewish tradition what they think was going on.

Both these approaches are flawed. The correct approach is a BELIEVING approach, where you get your King James Bible, and you read it as true. You trust every word of it (which eliminates the grammatical side) and you trust exactly what the Holy Ghost is revealing (which eliminates the historical context side).

The scholars doubt the words of God, and with their Grammatical-Historical method, make the Word of God of none effect.

Continue reading →

RUSSIA IN BIBLE PROPHECY

There’s a lot of material on Russian in Bible prophecy. Russia and its leader are directly spoken about in Ezekiel 38 and 39. This is a future prophecy.

Confirmation of this idea can be found in many sources, including from reference Bibles (Scofield or Dake), popular books (e.g. by John Walvoord or Hal Lindsey), older books (e.g. by W. H. M. Milner or Thomas Foster) as well as old time commentators.

Not everything these people thought or said was right. But they agree in the identity of where Magog is, and it is Russia!

Here’s just one of many old books you can read, called “The Russian Antichrist” by George Pinhorn (1854), http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DkJVAAAAcAAJ