1 Corinthians 11: 24

Assembly Testimony error

A Summers, writing in Assembly Testimony No.363, Jan/Feb2013, states,

….[M]ost translations (e.g. R.V., J.N.D., E.S.V.)drop the word “broken” in 1 Cor. 11.24 because of a lack of reliable manuscript evidence. They read “this is my body which is for you”.

It is a palpable lie that there is a lack of reliable manuscript evidence for the word “broken”. It may be that A Summers followed the perverted line of textual criticism without examining the evidence for himself. The evidence for inclusion is very strong.

I include my notes on this verse, taken from AV Verses Vindicated. 

The word 'broken' is omitted in the RV etc, but has the support of the majority of the Byzantine mss. and lectionary copies. It is also in the Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writings of some of the early fathers. The Codex Siniaticus is one of the few manuscripts omitting the word, but even this has been altered by a corrector to include it.

The  RV was the work of Westcott and Hort based on their own version of the Greek Text. But we note that even they did not remove klao (I break) from their new text. JND would have seen this. It was eventually the Nestle/Aland Greek Text that abandoned klao.  

In this there is,

" no contradiction and no departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of the Passover Lamb were not to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken. The body of the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed, and when it was skinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken, His body was broken when the crown of thorns broke the flesh of His brow, when the scourging broke the flesh of His body, when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and His feet, and when the spear broke the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover symbolism in that His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 - He was wounded for our transgressions."

Last paragraph quoted from TBS. Leaflet No.65.

The Day of Christ

In the same issue of Precious Seed as that quoted below we read a comment by John Stubbs. John has been a friend of mine for many decades and we have entertained him in our home on several occasions.

We must, however, take him to task, again,   for his comment,  “The Day of the Lord (‘Day of Christ’ KJV in verse 2 [2 Thess 2] should read ‘the Day of the Lord’ RV)

When Mr Stubbs made this statement while preaching at our hall in New Bradwell in 2008, he was instantly and publicly rebuked. It is a false statement, carrying no authority. It mocks my Bible and Christ. Its reappearance in the wretched Precious Seed magazine is therefore a matter of arrogance added to ignorance.

The change from the Received Text was made by the Westcott/Hort duo who were both perverted clerics. It is deeply regretted that men who purport to be our present Bible teachers should promote depraved parodies of Scripture.

I include, yet again, my notes on 2 Thess.2: 2

2 Thes.2:2.

….the day of Christ is at hand.   AV

“….asserting that the Day of the Lord has already come”.    NIV

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" ^*. So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ".

The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means that), then for a start they had missed the Rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what every modern version is about.

*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.

For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

United We Stand – Divided We Fall

A review of the article appearing in Precious Seed, No.? by J Gibson.

Is Gibson writing concerning the problems within his church (Curzon Street Gospel Hall, Derby) or problems affecting a broader circle? The first sentence seems to clarify this;

Unity is at the heart of Christianity.

“Christianity” is not a Bible word. It stands for the conglomerate mass of Christendom, which includes Romanism, Protestantism, every denomination and every Christianised cult. Its unity is easy to define. It is being screamed out continually. It is Ecumenism.

It is this anti- truth mess that Gibson and Precious Seed is promoting. His war cry is John 13: 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.

The Lord taught that a hall-mark of the true believer is that  as a disciple of Christ he will love other disciples. A disciple is one who follows Christ and continues therefore in Apostolic teaching.

Gibson then goes on to write that,

Our capacity to fully comprehend divine truth is impaired, even though the indwelling Holy Spirit has been sent to ‘guide [us ] into all truth’, John 16: 13  

[my italics-R.S.]                

                              

We are to believe that not even the Holy Spirit can do what He has been sent to do, i.e. to produce a one mindedness among His people concerning Scripture truth.  There is no such thing as absolute truth?

If we remember controversies have raged for centuries  ̶

We will be more gracious when confronting the opposing camp.

I confess I do not understand this statement.  How do I show my graciousness to men in the opposing camp? Where is this opposing camp? When some bring to us their doctrines of devils, as Paul warned they would, we refuse them. We are to refuse profane and old wives fables. How much more these outright satanic dogmas that men are thrusting on us. We believe some of these, held by and mentioned by Gibson include Calvinism, A-millennialism, etc.

I can be gracious but this will not include a handshake. Much less do wish to sit down and  break bread with them.  My responsibility is to show love to Christ and withdraw from such. Their “opposing camp” will not be found in our fellowship.

Gibson believes that “most disruptions in local churches boil down to nasty feelings and personality clashes”. This may be largely true because  doctrinal error is tolerated throughout Brethrenism.

The local church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15). John wrote, I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (1 John 2: 21)

We shall continue to withdraw from such who oppose truth,

Beware of the agnosticism and error of J Gibson and Precious Seed.

Gibson, with all P S contributors, holds the Authorized Version in contempt. Precious Seed Magazine must be treated with much suspicion.                                                                                                 

Two new AV Verses

 The following commentaries will be add to my AV Verses files.

Genesis 10: 11

Out of that land went therefore Asshur, and builded Nineveh…..

“From that land he went to Assyria. There he built Nineveh.”       NIV

Almost all versions agree with the NIV, which links “he” with Nimrod in v.8.  Nimrod’s father was Cush. Nimrod did not build Nineveh. He built Babylon.

Asshur was the second son of Shem.(V.22) Asshur built Nineveh.  He left the land of Shinar where was Babylon in order to build Nineveh.

There is no dispute in the Hebrew text and the Authorized Bible is plain in its translation, yet almost all scholars, historians, archeologists, etc  reject the AV reading. They have no authority for so doing.
The translators relegated the possibility of "he" to the margin, being satisfied that Asshur was the true reading.

This blind and stubborn rejection of inspired Scripture may have to do with the Hamitic background of Nimrod and the Semitic background of Asshur. No territory is to be acceded to the sons of Shem. God has other plans.

Ephesians 4: 19

Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

“They have become callous, and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.”   ESV

Seeing that the word callous existed in the 14^th century, we ask why the AV translators did not use it. The reason is they knew it did not properly translate apalgeo. (found here only in GNT) Paul was teaching that the unconverted Gentiles were unable to feel the pain of their actions upon themselves.

Callousness is a hardened attitude to the needs of others. Thus the ESV is a false translation.

Sensuality is far too bland a word to use here. Lasciviousness involves sexual impurity, lechery, lewdness.

The School Visitor

A FTW wrote recently, “when I go on a school visit, I don’t go in both guns blazing”.

Paul wrote,  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God, Acts 20: 27

Our FTW implies that he is holding back somewhat, One cannot tell an audience of mixed religions, We preach Christ crucified, and, neither is there salvation in any other.  (The very heart of the gospel!)

Our school visitors are required to preach another gospel, for which says the apostle, let him be accursed, Gal. 1: 8

The evidence of a false gospel preached is when the praise of ungodly men is given. Our FTW boasts how much he is appreciated by head teachers and staff.

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

Our FTW cares not that his “message” does not differ from that of the R.C., Methodist, Anglican, visitors.

A little bible story with a hint of a moral application does not keep a soul out of hell.

I also note that this FTW has a bible which does not agree with mine.

Beware Precious Seedism

In the year 1945 certain liberal minded brethren seized the title that pertains solely to the Word of God and gave the name to their magazine. It would be better called “Specious Weed”.

This magazine, through a current editor, John Bennett, denies separation and promotes Neo-Evangelicalism.

Mr Bennett begins his editorial in the Vol. 67 No. 2, 2012  issue by bemoaning the lack of love demonstrated by those who disagree with him. He part-quotes Gal.5: 22, ‘The fruit of the Spirit is love’, and ignores the other eight ingredients of this ONE fruit. He claims that “picking out just a few of the fruits of the Spirit we can see how practical it is” He also rejects the Authorized Version of 1 Cor. 13: 4, in favour of the NKJV because of its weak translation of agape.

An unwillingness to contend for the faith shows no love to Christ.Those who do contend are described as making a “so-called ‘stand for the truth’”. So he mocks those who oppose error. He describes them as those who “bite and devour one another.”

If one must ‘stand for the truth’ we are informed, it must be done according to the dictates of those being corrected. A person who refuses to heed admonition unless it is done with an inane grin (proving love?), we say, is apostate. For that matter a person who rejects the AV Bible is also apostate.

Mr Bennett claims that those who do promote error, Paul describes as “my beloved brethren”. 1 Cor 15: 58. This requires a further abuse of Scripture on the part of Mr Bennett, when he writes that some in Corinth were denying the truth of the resurrection.

This is a double falsehood. Paul did not refer to “some of you”.  He asked “How say some among you?”

J B will not accept that “some have crept in unawares”. He will not accept that Paul elsewhere spoke of “false brethren”. 2 Cor. 11: 26, Gal. 2: 4. Rather, he will hold that any person holding Brethren Assembly membership is one of his beloved brethren. What a delusion! My brethren, and all of them beloved, are faithful brethren. Our fellowship is based on light (which means I love some brethren who are not in fellowship with us!)

J B‘s second false representation is this. These false teachers in fellowship at Corinth were not denying the truth of resurrection. Mr Bennett might have avoided this error had he read the passage carefully. They were denying an aspect of it.

Paul wrote, “How say some AMONG you that there is no resurrection of the dead?: 1 Cor. 15: 12. They were denying an aspect of resurrection. Personally I expect to attain to the resurrection without passing through the article of death. I am looking for the Rapture, which may be today. We have to ask at this point,is Mr Bennett an A-millennialist?

Tares AMONG the wheat doesn’t make them wheat.

An example of correcting in love.

Scene: High Street.

Mr B is about to step off the pavement into the path of an oncoming bus.

Loving Bro:  Er-hum, excuse me Mr B,sorry to intrude on you while you are busy. I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that if you continue along your present course of locomotion, you are likely, yes indeed I would say positively, you may, or certainly, ……. oh dear, poor Mr Ben. He’s been flattened.       Maybe I should just have shouted at him.          

 

 

 

 

Brethren and their wine.

The Brethren are free to consume intoxicating liquor. By authority of Gospel Hall.org.

The following statement is found on the North American brethren website, Gospel Hall.org.

“Since the grape harvest was in the Fall (the seventh month) and the Passover at which the Lord's Supper was instituted was in the Spring (the first month) and since there would have been no refrigeration to inhibit the process of fermentation, it is likely that the wine at the last Passover was fermented. In addition, the Lord made water wine (John 4:46). Timothy was told to drink wine (I Timothy 5:23). The word in both those cases is the same word used for wine that causes drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18).
We cannot insist that the loaf be unleavened bread or the cup unfermented wine.”
— D. Oliver

What a pity that David Oliver continues in his misleading statements. We understand he has the backing of his North American brethren for publishing this plain error. We recommend every believer to read Ancient Wine & the Bible by D R Brumbelow, published by Free Church Press, October 2011. This is a very readable and well documented book showing that the grape harvest extended over several months according to the variety of grape. Preservation of unfermented grape juice was practiced and did not depend on refrigeration It was also known how to preserve fresh grapes for six or seven months of the year.

Wine is a generic word and can mean fermented or unfermented wine, the context usually making the meaning clear.

The implication that the Lord produced intoxicating liquor at Cana in defiance of Proverbs 23: 31, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright, is a wicked indictment against Him.

If alcoholic wine is right at the Lord’s Supper, it cannot be wrong at any other time. If the consumption of alcohol is wrong at the Lord’s Supper, and we submit that it is wrong, then may the brethren not be in error in many other practices?

And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand: and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand. Genesis 40: 11. That is how the mighty Pharaoh drank his wine!

Vision Forum

Howard Hughes, sponsored by Spencer Bridge Road Gospel Hall Assembly for prison work, has sent out his prayer letter.
There is much in it to rejoice over. We praise God for those he reaches in this gospel outreach, and we pray for many who have been influenced for good in this ministry.
But we bear in mind that this is an ecumenical work that can be carried out only through the office of the prison chaplaincy.
What gives concern about Howard’s  prayer letter is a link given to the Vision Forum website. This is a home schooling website. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with home schooling  but Vision Forum reveals a different mind-set entirely to the majority of believers in assembly fellowship.
This statement is found on their site:
“[The family] is God’s primary vehicle for communicating covenant promises to the next generation. It is the basic agency of dominion on earth.”  - Douglas W Phillips.
The statement is loaded with error. Home schoolers deny  the role of the local church. Their family and their philosophy is more important than assembly Bible teaching.
Covenant theology is false, denying the prophetic teaching of Scripture. Dispensational teaching is despised by those who hold to Covenant Theology..
Christians have no role in world dominion.
We trust that Howard’s elders will seek to re-educate him.

* We understand Mr Hughes and family have now (December 2012) withdrawn from fellowship at Spencerbridge Road Assembly, Northampton because of their holding to false doctrine.