Four Versions of KJV Onlyism

Posted on October 20, 2013 by dknezacek

I try not to post other people’s work here, because I don’t want to get the reputation of relying on other’s research.  From time to time, however, I am blown away by the work of another, and I just have to re-post it!  This is one of those times.

This week, Kent Brandenburg of “What is Truth” posted an article about the several different views that come under the umbrella of KJV onlyism.  Only one of those views is biblically correct, and that is the one that Mr. Brandenburg is teaching.  This is not a superstitious view of the King James bible, as if God’s words were lost and the KJV Translators had to restore it. Nor is this the view that the English is somehow better than the original Greek and Hebrew.  No, this view is the one traditionally held by Christians around the world; that God providentially preserved His words in the original languages, and the Authorized Version, aka the King James, is an accurate translation of it.

Mr. Brandenburg does a better job of explaining it than me, so please take the time to read through his post.  I’m sure you will be blessed;

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Let’s Be Very Clear: Not All King James Version Views Are the Same

A crafty way that multiple version (MV) or eclectic text (ET) advocates oppose the support of the King James Version is by lumping together all King James Version proponents as if they are all the same.  There are extreme differences between different King James Version positions.  To pick out the weakest, or even the strangest, a weird one, that has almost no veracity, and to knock it down, demolish it, doesn’t mean that you’ve actually proven much, if anything.  And MV and ET defenders do mow down the worst of the KJVO (King James Version Only) and treat it like they’ve downed Goliath, included often times with strutting and trash-talking.

From the outside looking in, the MV/ET approach the odd KJV views like how upperclassmen, who still play freshman football, might pick on someone like themselves, but who plays on the junior high team.   The upperclassmen are pathetic.  Those KJVO aren’t reading you and those who do read you are not in any risk of reading them.  Please leave them alone.

Ultimately, you just want to follow the truth and honor God, right?  Isn’t that what you want?  You aren’t trying only to win a debate or an argument.  You want to take the position that represents God, what He’s said, right?  So just because we are able easily to dispose of some far-out, non-historic, non-exegetical viewpoints, doesn’t mean that we’ve reached that goal.  We haven’t even defended our own belief by doing away with other wrong beliefs.

So what are various King James Version positions?

I’m not going to attempt to label each of the views that people take, who support the King James Version, because the advocates will say I got it wrong.  This will not come in any particular order.

Double Inspiration

Some believe that God has improved upon the original Hebrew and Greek by inspiring the Bible in English.  Those who believe this say that the King James Version is the final edition of God’s inspiration and God chose to accomplish this in English.  Obviously, these are people who support the King James Version and they’re King James Only, but they are much different than other iterations of KJVO.  As I’ve read this type of KJVO and then MV/ET, I have found them to be very similar in their underlying error.  They are both detached from bibliology.

English Preservation

Some teach that God preserved His Word by means of the English translation, the King James Version.  They don’t believe that Scripture is preserved in the underlying text, because they would say that we don’t have a whole Greek text of the New Testament from which the King James Version was translated.  The preservation of Scripture is found in the English, the King James Version.  Any reference to the underlying Greek text is an attempt, it seems, to correct the KJV.

Majority or Byzantine Text

There are those who prefer the King James because it comes from the majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or from the Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament.  It became a standardized translation, so they prefer it.  They don’t accept the modern versions, because those are influenced by the critical or eclectic text.  They aren’t dogmatic about the King James Version.  They just approve of it themselves without condemning people who use other translations.

Accurate English Translation of a Providentially Preserved Text

God preserved His Words, everyone of them, in the language in which they were written, and those Words have been accessible to every generation of believers.  The King James Version is the best English translation of those Words and has been acceptable to churches.  This position is buttressed upon biblical and historic teaching on the preservation of scripture.   This position doesn’t say that every Word was preserved in any particular printed edition of the textus receptus previous to 1611, but that the perfectly preserved Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words were received by and accessible to true churches (believers).  Some have called this the “sacred text” position.  I have called this the doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.  This is the historic and biblical position.

I believe the fourth and last position here.  I don’t believe the top three positions.  There are many just like me.  Most MV/ET advocates, who do not hold a historical or biblical view, argue against the proponents of either double inspiration or English preservation, and then they act as though they have shown what’s wrong with KJVO.  They get back slaps and ‘atta-boys’ for having done so.  They don’t fare so well when they have to take their positions into the consideration of careful exegesis of scripture.  The just shall live by faith.

Posted by at 1:03 AM

I would invite the reader to read through the articles on Mr. Brandenburg’s blog.  There are a lot of excellent articles about the KJV only debate there.  You will see debates with modern version proponents such as Dan Wallace there.  Scroll down his blog and click on the headings on the right hand column, especially those under the heading “posts on the preservation of Scripture”.  Whatever disagreements we might have on other subjects, I am in total agreement with him on the Textual debate.

God Bless,

Dan Knezacek

Posted in Christian Doctrine | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Help for a Canadian Free Speech Advocate

Posted on October 16, 2013 by dknezacek

I have been following Ezra Levant for some time (from time to time), and now it appears that he is being sued by a Pakistani born Imam, solely because he tells the truth about Islam and Jihad. This person has used and is using the Canadian legal-aid system, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to launch this frivolous attack against free speech. He is using our system against us!

Mr. Levant is fighting this on his own.

For anyone who believes in freedom, and free-speech, now would be a good time to make a donation to the cause.

At the very least, visit his website and learn about the issues.

Dan

Posted in Uncategorized, World Events | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Chapter 8 Exposed

Posted on October 7, 2013 by dknezacek

In Gary DeMar’s book “10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed”, I have found that every chapter is progressively more grievous, and chapter 8 is the most offensive yet! DeMar is very intelligent and his arguments are slick, but terribly wrong.

The chapter is entitled ‘The Myth that the Gospel Has Yet to be Preached in the “Whole World”’, and begins with the following statement from John Lightfoot’s “Commentary on the Gospels from the Talmud and Hebraica”;

“Was not the gospel brought unto and published amongst the ten tribes as well as amongst the Jews when the apostle wrote this Epistle? The determination of this matter seems to conduce something towards the explaining of this chapter [Rom. 11], seeing throughout the whole chapter there is no mention of the Jews singly, but of Israel. The gospel was to be preached to the whole world before the destruction of Jerusalem [which took place in A.D. 70], Matt. xxiv. 14: and was it not to the ten tribes as well as the nations? It makes for the affirmative, that St. James directs his Epistle…, to those ten tribes, as well as the other two. ”

While James does indeed direct his epistle to the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad, this in itself does not mean that every member of those tribes had access to this letter. Indeed, we are finding more and more information about the whereabouts of those tribes even today. Some of them ended up in India, Burma, and China. Others ended up in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and yet others found themselves in places like South Africa.

DeMar’s premise is that Israel heard the gospel, rejected it, and that was the last chance for them as a nation. This contradicts some of his statements in the earlier chapters, and presupposes that God is not loving toward Israel, and that He leaves it all up to them. If He did that, none of us would be saved!

As a reformed theologian, one would think that when God says “All Israel shall be saved” that God is able to save all Israel. Once again, as he does continually throughout the book, however, DeMar simply says that “all” doesn’t mean all, and “whole world” does not really mean the whole world, but only a portion of it, really just the Roman empire.

He does have a point, that sometimes the New Testament epistles do use the phrase “the whole world” to indicate only a portion of it, this does not mean that God does not have the freedom to use the other meaning when the need arises!

Which is come unto you, as it isin all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: Col. 1:6

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Romans 1:8

5Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: Romans 16:25-26

I am just a bible believer. I do not have some advanced degree from some highfalutin bible college somewhere. So how can a regular Christian understand these passages, and do they mean that the gospel did indeed go into all the world during the life of the Apostles?

First of all, it is clear from the context of the passages that “the whole world” here does not mean anything more than the Roman Empire. In this DeMar is correct.

The problem with DeMar’s book here is that he is, once again, ignoring the principle that Scripture must interpret Scripture. There are numerous Old Testament passages that indicate that Armageddon will involve the whole world, not merely the ancient Roman empire. One of the most striking is found in Jeremiah 25. In fact, I would say that Jeremiah 25 puts the lie to DeMar’s argument;

15 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. 16 And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them. 17 Then took I the cup at the LORD’S hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the LORD had sent me: 18 To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day; 19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and his servants, and his princes, and all his people; 20 And all the mingled people, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Ashkelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod, 21 Edom, and Moab, and the children of Ammon, 22 And all the kings of Tyrus, and all the kings of Zidon, and the kings of the isles which are beyond the sea, 23 Dedan, and Tema, and Buz, and all that are in the utmost corners, 24 And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert, 25 And all the kings of Zimri, and all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes, 26 And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.

So, in verse 15 The Lord sends Jeremiah to all the nations. Then in verse 17, Jeremiah says that he did indeed go to all the nations to whom the Lord sent him, and he follows this up with a list of nations that ends with “and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth”.

Now wait a minute! We know of a certainty that Jeremiah, in his lifetime, never came to North America, South America, Russia (the kings of the north), China, or Australia, so what is going on here? Neither did he personally go to all the Middle Eastern nations listed. How is it possible that his message of wrath went to all the nations which are upon the face of the earth?

Jeremiah was a prophet. He was speaking prophetically. And, though he personally did not go to all the nations listed here, his message went out from him with the intent that it would ultimately make it to all the nations of the whole world. It will! It is spoken of as a fait accompli because it is the Lord who guarantees that those nations will get Jeremiah’s message. It is as sure as if it was written in stone… it cannot be stopped!

It just so happens that Jeremiah 25 is speaking of the same event as Revelation 19, and specifically states that all the nations of the world will be involved. Notice also, that the Roman empire did not exist at the time Isaiah wrote. So if Matthew 24:14 is the only place in the New Testament where “the whole world” actually means the whole world, so be it! It has to. There is no other option.

So, did the gospel go into the whole world during the life of the Apostles? Yes it did, in the same sense that Jeremiah’s letter went to all the nations he was told to take it to. It is a continuing process, though viewed prophetically as a fait accompli. It went out into “the whole world”, though it will not make its final destination until the End Times. This phrase is used in the same sense as Jesus being slain from the foundation of the world;

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8

He wasn’t literally slain from the foundation of the world, but it was a sure thing that nothing could stop!

In speaking of a prophetic passage, DeMar needs to compare it to other prophetic passages, especially those speaking of the same time-frame, and not to non-prophetic passages as he did here. This is a fundamental error on his part.

On pages 120-121 Demar lists several objections to the idea that the gospel didn’t go to the ends of the earth during the life of the Apostles, the first three of which we have already dealt with, but I want to take a look at point number 4 for a moment;

4. “The end” that Jesus refers to in Matthew 24:14 is the same end described in 24:3 and 6—the “end of the age”: the end of the old covenant and the inauguration of the new (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1–2). That first-century generation was living at the time of “the consummation of the ages” that “has been manifested” (Heb. 9:26). Peter and James confirm this when they wrote that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7) and that “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (James 5:8). The use of “end” is not a reference to the end of everything but of the end of a specific period of time in redemptive history.

DeMar’s first statement here is absurd, when you think about it. The end of the age of Israel occurred when Jesus ascended into Heaven, and the inauguration of the Church age began ten days later at Pentecost. DeMar and the Preterists are arguing that the end of that age occurred some forty years later when the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem. To them the cross, the resurrection, and the Lord’s ascension are of minor importance in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem!

These people are ignoring the fact that the bible was written during the early years of the Church age, and was intended for people of the entire Church age, not just for the early Church. While Jesus and His disciples were speaking during the age of Israel, the subject they were speaking of was actually the end of the Church age, an age which was to begin in only a few days time… days, not years! Don’t forget we are discussing Jesus’ reference to “this generation” from Matthew 24. This was His last major dissertation before the cross, which occurred in less than a week.

While all the other references to “this generation” in the gospels may be referring to the generation alive at the time He spoke, this one is a reference to the people who are alive during the events He was speaking of, the End Times. What He is actually saying is that the generation of Israelites who make the final return to Israel, after the Psalm 83 and the Ezekiel 38-39 wars. The whole thing will occur while that generation is still alive on the earth.

I am aware that what I am saying is somewhat different than what most Dispensationalists teach, but they are correct that the generation He was referring to was not the generation alive at that time. They are at least closer to the truth than Preterists and Amillennialists.

DeMar then quotes a bunch of expositors who were all infected by Augustine’s philosophy, as if having a bunch of apostates with him gives his views more weight!

The fact is that the entire church was futuristic in its eschatology, until Augustine came up with Amillennialism. His focus on this life and this world, were the driving forces behind his invention of Amillennialism. This philosophy is NOT based on a faith in the return of Christ, nor in the promises of God, but rather it lifts up the “Church” and man, and makes Christ dependent on us!

On page 135 DeMar makes a statement that really sums up his attitude toward Jesus’ discussion in Matthew 24;

“Notice also that Jesus tells His disciples that the things outlined in Matthew 24 will happen to them. Jesus makes this point by His continual use of the second person plural “you”:

• “And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars” (24:6).

• “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation” (24:9).

• [And they] will kill you” (24:9).

• “And you will be hated by all nations on account of My name” (24:9).

• “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation … standing in the holy place” (24:15).

Sandwiched between 24:6, 9 and 24:15 is “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world [oikoumenē] for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come” (24:14). If, as Ice correctly notes, “the deciding factor is the context,” then as the above passages demonstrate, the context is decidedly pre-A.D. 70, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. ” (10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed , Gary Demar, page 135)

Demar is so very selective in his quotes. Jesus uses the word “ye” in verse 44 which has exactly the same meaning as “you” in the above passages;

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:44

Is Jesus saying that the very disciples who were sitting and listening to Him at that moment would think He would not return? Was He saying that He would return within their lifetimes and they themselves would not be ready? Or, was He saying that “you, the person reading this book, may not be ready when I return”?

The second person plural “you”, or “ye”, can indeed include all people who read the bible, at any time during the Church age.

The latter possibility is the only one that makes any sense. The disciples dearly loved Jesus and were looking for His return throughout the rest of their lives. He has not returned yet, contrary to assertions by Preterists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but will do so at a future time when those claiming to be His followers will THINK that He WILL NOT RETURN! They will think so, because they think someone else is on the earth in the Spirit of Christ… The Antichrist!

DeMar has a tendency to over-contextualize the bible, as if the authors themselves were behind the Word of God, and one could only understand what they have written by viewing the Scriptures through the eyes of a first century person. He consistently understates and diminishes the role of the Holy Spirit in Scripture interpretation.

He speaks of Hermeneutics as if you will reach the truth by applying a set of rules to the Scriptures. Well, if you apply a set of rules developed by a heretic like Augustine, you will end up with Augustine’s interpretation. This does not mean, however, that you have the Holy Spirit’s interpretation, and the truth, but only that you look at the world through Augustine coloured glasses!

Scripture itself tells us;

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.  I Corinthians 2:14

DeMar takes up a lot of space, explaining that the Greek word oikoumenē, translated as “world”, in Matthew 24 actually means the whole Roman empire. While it can mean that, he also admits that it can mean “all the people of the entire globe”, but goes to great pains to prove that this is not the meaning intended in Matthew 24. His arguments are slick, but he does fail to prove that this is the only possible meaning, or the only one the Lord intended. Just because the Lord meant one thing many other times does not prove that He has no freedom to chose a different meaning in another context.

He quotes Revelation 12:9, where oikoumenē is used to mean the “whole world”;

“Satan is said to be one “who deceives the whole world” (12:9). Once again, Revelation describes those things which must “shortly take place” (1:1) “for the time is near” (1:3). The world (oikoumenē) that is being deceived is the one to which the seven churches are written (2–3). Certainly the devil deceives more than this area, but the point of Revelation is to describe what’s about to happen to within a shortened time frame. ”

What he is doing here is reading into the text that which he has already determined to be the case. Once again DeMar is doing exactly what he accuses Dispensationalists of doing. This is called “eisegesis”, making Scripture conform to your ideas, but what Christians are called to do is exegesis, reading what is there, and modifying our understanding to conform to the Word of God.

When it says Satan deceives the whole world, it is clear that this means the whole world, even parts yet to be discovered by “civilized” man.

DeMar spends a lot of time in this chapter accusing Dispensationalists of Scriptural eisegesis, and yet this is exactly what he himself is doing! His views are exactly playing into the warning given by the Lord Himself in Matthew 24:44! Those following DeMar’s teachings will one day find themselves supporting the Antichrist!

If you think the book of Revelation is past history, as DeMar does, you will not be watching when the real Antichrist shows up!

Posted in Book Reviews, Christian Doctrine, Prophecy, Prophecy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Lech Walesa says Germany and Poland should unite!

Posted on September 26, 2013 by dknezacek

On September 24 the Telegraph from the UK reported that former president of Poland, Lech Walesa, is saying that Poland and Germany should unite.

“We need to expand economic and defence co-operation and other structures to create one state from Poland and Germany in Europe,” he said.

As I stated in chapter 2 of The Spirit of Prophecy, I expect the European Union will split in two.  The productive nations of eastern Europe, and Germany, are tired of bailing out the PIIGS, who can’t seem to be able to manage their out-of-control spending. (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain).  Will England join them?  The Czech republic?  I don’t know, but I predict this movement will gain steam, given time and more irresponsibility from the PIIGS.

There is something else behind this potential break-up of the EU.  Biblical prophecy, or to be more precise, someone’s attempt to identify the EU as the ten nation confederacy of Revelation 17.

You see, I don’t believe the EU is the ten nations of Revelation 17, but I believe Satan wants us to believe it is!

It would be hard for Satan to convince anybody that a 28 state super-nation is the ten nation confederacy spoken of in Revelation 17:12.

Why would Satan want us to believe the EU is the super-state spoken of in Revelation?  Because it isn’t that state.

Satan is a hunter, he hunts human souls.  One thing hunters are known for is decoys.

Not the kind of decoy we’re talking about, but the concept is the same

Satan is also rather adept at producing decoys.  Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism are all some of Satan’s decoys, but don’t think Satan is limited to creating false religions.  He is quite able to use politicians as well as pastors!  This is why Paul said;

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. I Thessalonians 5:3

Why would people be saying “peace and safety“?  It is not something we would say in the world today is it?  No, They will be saying this at a time when they think the Tribulation is over!

They will think the Tribulation is over because Satan will produce enough counterfeits, of the events of the book of Revelation, that many professing Christians will be convinced they have gone through the Tribulation.

If a ten nation confederacy, from southern Europe, has an evil leader who assists Israel in writing a peace treaty with the Arabs, this does not mean that this person is the biblical Antichrist.  There is a very real possibility that this will happen, after the Psalm 83 war, and this person will be Satan’s counterfeit Antichrist; a patsy he can set-up specifically to knock down!

In fact I would not be surprised if the real Antichrist were somehow involved in the destruction of the fake Antichrist.  I can’t be certain, but if you want to make someone into a hero, he has to be opposed to a real bad-guy.  Make no mistake about it, Satan wants the world to look upon the Antichrist as a hero.

This is also why Jesus said;

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Matthew 24:44

Jesus was not saying that people would not be thinking about Him, and His return.  No!  What he was saying is that He would return at a time when people think He will not return!  This is why Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Preterism are so dangerous.  they all teach that Jesus Christ will not physically return and rule the earth!

Jesus was predicting that these philosophies would prevail in professing Christendom by the time He actually does return.  This is why he said He would return at a time “ye” think not.  “Ye” is a plural for of “You”, and it means that the people reading the bible in the End Times, are those he is addressing!

I think that what else He is implying is that they think He will not return because there is a man ruling the world in His place, in his Spirit!  That person will be the Antichrist, of course!  This is what can happen when you spiritualize Scripture!

So, what of Lech Walesa’s statement?  We are seeing the preliminary stages of a split in the EU, where a bunch of nations will leave, so that a ten nation confederacy can take the place of Revelation’s harlot.

Notice that in Revelation 17:1, the Harlot sits on many waters.

And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters

The reference to “many waters” is a reference to the entire population of the planet, the “sea of nations” or the “seven seas”.  This cannot be a nation in southern Europe, but rather, after the Psalm 83 war, and the Ezekiel 38-39 war, the EU will be ONE of the ten super-nations.

Walesa’s comments fit right in with “the plan”!

Dan Knezacek

Posted in Christian Doctrine, Prophecy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Science for the Average Dude

Posted on September 21, 2013 by dknezacek

I was quite upset a couple weeks ago when Chris Rosebrough broadcast Dan Wallace and his Introduction to Textual Criticism. A lot of what was passed off as being “science” was actually the interpretation of Occultists, and enemies of God. Meanwhile both Wallace and Rosebrough avoided talking about real science. Why? Maybe because real science supports the Textus Receptus?  I think so.

Here’s what I mean;

In Canada we got rid of the dollar bill in 1987, because it was getting too expensive for our mint to keep on printing them. Every bill had to be replaced in a few short years. We replaced them with brass coins, which last quite a bit longer, although they are also subject to decay.

I can’t remember how long Canadian bills lasted, I think I heard seven years, but here are some figures from the US Federal Reserve, about how long their bills last;

$1

5.9 years

$5

4.9 years

$10

4.2 years

$20

7.7 years

$50

3.7 years

$100

15.0 years

You can find the rest of the page here

The definition of “science” technically is “knowledge”, but the “scientific method” refers to a fact that can be tested, repeated, and observed.

Every day we carry out a simple science experiment with paper money.  And, by the way, paper money is made out of premium paper. The best money can buy!

So, when paper money is used regularly, like a one dollar bill, it lasts about 5.9 years. This is a scientific fact that can be verified by the average person.

If you want to, you could make two paper copies of something. Put one copy in an envelope, on a shelf between two books, and don’t touch it for ten years. Now put the other copy in a prominent place and pick it up and handle it every day. If you miss one day, pick it up twice the next day. Do this every day for ten years.

After ten years, what will be the difference between these two pieces of paper? The one you have handled will be worn, ripped, and beginning to shred. Maybe entirely gone! The one kept in an envelope, will be almost like new.

Your body, as all human bodies, produces oils and acids which go from your fingers to whatever you are handling. Not only do these chemicals destroy paper in a very short time, but they even cause degradation to metal coins. I have a coin dating from the time of Diocletian, which is barely discernible because it was handled by humans. Incidentally the Roman emperor Diocletian lived within about a century of the production of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

As I said, this is simple science, but it is also real science. There is an application of this science to the text of the bible, and to the “science” of Textual Criticism.

Now, if you are using a newer version of the bible like the NIV, CEV, NASB, ESV, etc., turn to the last page of the book of Mark. You will see an interesting footnote there at verse 8.

My NIV has a line at the end of Mark 16:8, and a note that says “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20”. In other words, Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the bible.

The New King James version has this note in a footnote at the end of verse 8; “Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.”

The “most reliable early manuscripts” referred to in the NIV are the very same Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus mentioned in the NKJV footnote. Both of these footnotes are being somewhat disingenuous here, although the NKJV is at least partially honest.

The NU is a reference to Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies text. The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus texts are bound books dating from the fourth century of the Christian era.

Some people, like Chris Pinto, doubt the age of these texts, but I think they are genuine. They probably date from the fourth century, and may be a part of a series of bibles commissioned by Jerome, when he produced his corrupt Vulgate.

If the translators of the new bible versions really believed these verses didn’t belong in the bible they would remove them, but instead they insert these footnotes to make you doubt the Word of God.

Now we have to apply some science which we examined earlier; How did these ancient books survive some 1,600 years, given the fact that dollar bills only last 5.9 years? According to REAL science, testable science, these manuscripts could not have survived 1,600 years…unless.

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus could not have survived as long as they have unless they sat on a shelf for most of that time. And they did!

No one ever used these two manuscripts until they were used by Westcott and Hort when they produced their “Textus Criticus” in 1881. The early church never used these manuscripts… because they knew they were corrupt.

What text did the early Christians use? They used the same text as the majority of the existing manuscripts, a text commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus. As they made faithful copies their originals, and then copies, wore out, but were replaced by newer, faithful copies. So do we have a word-for-word copy of the originals today? For all intents and purposes, yes! The Textus Receptus, and translations based on it, like the Authorized Version are faithful representations of the original biblical text.

Of the nearly six thousand extant manuscripts of the bible, well over five thousand support the Textus Receptus, and the King James Bible. Only about 250 manuscripts support the Critical Text, and these fail to agree with each other, let alone the majority!

So, does science prove the Critical Text is superior? No! Real science corroborates the Textus Receptus and the old translations like the AV, the King James Bible.

Are bible translation committees being honest when they call Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus “the oldest and best manuscripts”? They may believe they are the best, but they are deceived.  Unfortunately an industry has built up around the Critical Text, which provides employment for many people, including translators, and professors.  For them to admit they were wrong would mean a loss of employment, and reliance on God.  From time to time some of the Critical Text people come over to the side of the Textus Receptus, but don’t expect a landslide, not in this age of apostasy.

Dan Knezacek

For further reading:

http://www.endtimesprophecy.co.uk/page10.htm

http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/received_text.htm

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/idx_Pages/idx_critical_texts.htm

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/yahweh.htm

Kent Brandenburg has a wealth of information about the Textual issues, and a series of rebuttals to several articles by Dan Wallace.  You can find links to these articles by going to his main page, and scrolling down and clicking on the titles on the right hand side of the page. http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.ca/

Posted in Christian Doctrine | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Birth of Christ

Posted on September 15, 2013 by dknezacek

It looks like we just missed the anniversary of the birth of Christ, again.

I know most Christians think He was born in December, but there is biblical evidence that Jesus was actually born in September, 3 BC!

It appears that Revelation 12:1-5 is actually a look back at the time of the birth of Christ. The symbols mentioned in the passage appear to be references to astronomical symbols.

“And there was a great wonder [sign] in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: and she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder [sign] in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his head. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.”

Revelation 12:1–5

The only day that the constellations line up as described in Revelation 12 is September 11, of 3 BC.

Check out the article here http://www.askelm.com/star/star006.htm

I don’t know the political or religious affiliation of the author, but I don’t think it is important at this point. If the facts are as he lays out, then Jesus was born in September.

So, what are we doing celebrating His birthday in December?

The truth is that the December date for Jesus’ birthday actually comes from ancient pagan tradition for the birthday of the sun-god, Tammuz.

When Constantine formed the Roman Catholic Church, and made it the state religion, they incorporated pagan practices and Christianized them. This is why Easter and Passover don’t always coincide, and it is why Christmas is in December.

Interestingly the pagan celebration of December was a feast of conspicuous consumption, just like our modern Christmases.

While many Christians attempt to keep Christ in Christmas, I think it may be time for us to set aside a day in September, and spend it in quiet contemplation of the meaning of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God.

Leave December 25 alone, and let the dead bury their dead!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Textual Criticism on Pirate Christian Radio

Posted on September 7, 2013 by dknezacek

Having been on the night shift for the last three months, with very little company, I have been downloading and listening to programs from Pirate Christian Radio, with Chris Rosebrough, and Worldview Weekend, with Brannon Howse.

For the most part these gentlemen produce some very informative programs, but there are times when I begin to wonder.

Tuesday September 2 was one of those days.

As a “bonus” episode for Labour Day, Chris Rosebrough played an introduction to Textual Criticism, by professor Dan Wallace. It was an appropriate choice of days, since Textual Criticism is a labour of man.

Why not honour man’s labour on Labour Day?

I found it interesting that both Chris Rosebrough, and Dan Wallace, claimed that Textual Criticism is a “science”! Hinduism claims to be a “science” too! So does the “Church” of Scientology! There is a mystic New Age cult called “Science of Mind”   Indeed evolutionists claim that evolution is a “science”, though in fact it is merely one of man’s religions, a story made up to explain creation without God!

If Textual Criticism is a “science” then one does not need to be a born-again Christian to find the words of God in the biblical text. All one needs to do is to follow “scientific” principles and you can reconstruct the original bible! Faith has no part in the process, and neither does knowing the God of the bible!

Amazingly these people are consistent with this view, that anyone can use “scientific” principles to reconstruct the bible! If you examine the history of Textual Criticism, you find that it is full of names of unbelievers, Occultists, Spiritists, and Nazis!

Essentially they are saying that the Words of God were lost, and He needs us to find them again for Him!

The original Textus Criticus was compiled by two Occultists; Brook Foss Westcott, and John Anthony Hort. These two Anglicans were members of the Hermes club, and the Ghostly Guild, a society dedicated to the study of the paranormal.  (Hermes was an ancient pagan god.) Westcott was a friend of Helena Blavatsky, the nineteenth century leader of the British Occult revival.

Regardless of whether they were occultists or not, their theory is full of error, and it is on this theory that modern Textual Criticism is based. The Dean Burgon Society has an excellent article refuting the errors of Westcott and Hort here

“Helena P. Blavatsky was deeply into spiritism and communication with the dead. She was the founder of the Theosophical Society. She also attended the “Ghostly Guild” meetings with Westcott and Hort, along with Charles Darwin. In her books Isis Unveiled Volumes 1 and 2 and The Secret Doctrine Volumes 1 and 2, Blavatsky says: “We have the Bible in truth in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.” And she goes on to say: “Westcott and Hort were true scholars that corrected the errors in previous versions.”

Madame Blavatsky also said: “Now that the ‘Revised Version’ of the gospels has been published by Westcott and Hort, and the most glaring mistranlations of the old version, the King James, are corrected, one will better understand the words. The text of the English Protestant Bible is in disagreement as usual with the Alexandrian text. That which for nearly 1500 years was opposed on Christianism of a book which every word was written under direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable or comma could be changed without Sacrilege, but now is being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, and in some cases almost entire chapters. And as soon as the new edition is out, its doctors Westcott and Hort will have us accept it as new revelation of the 19th century. And the King James translators have made such a jumble of it, that no one but an occultist can restore the Bible to its original form.” (H.P. Blavatsky, on the Bible, Isis Unveiled.)” ( http://brandplucked.webs.com/westcotthortjameswhite.htm )

Gerhard Kittel, a German protestant theologian, and member of the Nazi party, was the son of Rudolph Kittel, the man who changed the biblical Old Testament text from the Ben Chayyim (Masoretic) text to the Ben Asher (Leningrad Codex) text. Gerhard Kittel was Hitler’s theologian, who wrote many anti-Semitic articles justifying the Nazi persecution of the Jews. He also wrote a New Testament lexicon that is popular to this day!

Kurt Aland, another German Theologian, was released from German military service in 1940, so he could pursue his education. At a time when Germany was deep in world war 2, Aland was released from military service. The Nazis must have thought his theological work was more important than fighting for his country. At a time when the Nazi party persecuted all opposition, Aland was pursuing his education in the same nation. I can’t say that Aland was a Nazi himself, but he did prosper under them. No doubt his philosophy was quite compatible with them. This is the same Aland of the Nestle-Aland New Testament Text that underlies most modern bible translations.

Guilt by association, you say? Should I ask a Buddhist to interpret the bible for me? He associates with the Buddha.  Should I ask a Muslim to interpret the bible for me? He associates with Mohammad, a man who said the bible is corrupt. A man who associated with evil spirits in a cave. Should I allow Textual Critics to interpret the bible for me? Their “science” is fraudulent, man-based, and they associate with occultists, and Nazis.

You can’t tell me that a man’s anti-Semitic, or Occultic, philosophy will not affect the way he compiles texts.

Interestingly, Dan Wallace also says the bible has been corrupted, just like Mohammad. The difference is that Mr. Wallace says that he can restore the bible to its original state, by the use of a “science” called Textual Criticism.

The problem with Textual Criticism that its proponents seem unaware of, is that it puts the words of God at the mercy of sinful men. Textual Criticism is based on unfounded suppositions, and faulty assumptions.

The assumption is that the oldest text must be the most accurate. There is a logic to this assumption, but there is also a fallacy. The Apostle Paul said;

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. II Corinthians 2:17

Now, the modern text people will tell you that the word translated as “corrupt” in the AV is actually “peddle” in the Greek. They are correct, but please read the whole verse. The context of “peddle” in this passage is people who were making copies, rapidly, and without regard to accuracy, for the purpose of selling it.

There is nothing wrong with selling copies of the Word of God, but if you are making corrupt, inaccurate, copies for the purpose of making money this is a problem, and this is exactly what Paul was getting at with his use of the word “peddle”. And, if the bible was being corrupted while the Apostles were still alive then there is no guarantee that old copies are more accurate.

In fact the very opposite is exactly what happened; Christians who knew the Word of God, would not use such corrupt copies, so they sat on the shelf, unused! What happens when you handle things with your hands? There are oils and acids that human hands excrete, and these chemicals cause vellum, and papyrus to accelerate their decay.

The bibles the Church used were subject to accelerated decay, and wore out after a few years, because of use. This was not a problem, however, because these Churches made copies of the texts they were using, so Christians always had accurate copies of the bible available to them. Churches who love the word of God took great pains to make accurate copies, unlike the peddlers of Paul’s day.

The oldest texts that Dan Wallace says are the “the most accurate” are actually the corrupt texts that sat unused on the shelf, for hundreds of years. Real Christians wouldn’t use them then, and still have a problem with them to this day.

Both Dan Wallace and Chris Rosebrough contradicted themselves on the subject of the Textus Receptus, the text that underlies the old bibles including the AV. Wallace said that while there are hundreds of thousands of variations in the various manuscripts, 99.9 percent of them are only spelling variations. Then, they turned around and said that, since Erasmus only used seven manuscripts when compiling the Textus Receptus, it cannot be trusted!

What they are getting at is that you can’t trust the Textus Receptus, and the bibles based on it, like the AV, and you must trust the Textual Critics!

The truth is that Erasmus had other manuscripts available to him, but he chose that particular seven because they were representative of the vast majority of biblical texts. Erasmus specifically ignored Jerome’s Latin Vulgate as corrupt, which it is.

Wallace made a point of stating the number of extant Greek texts to be almost at six thousand, which is accurate.

He forgot to mention, however, that among those six thousand texts there are actually two families. There is the minority text, of which the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are representative. This textual family is represented by only about two hundred and fifty manuscripts. These are the manuscripts that the modern bible versions are based on, versions such as the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, CEV, and the Message.

He also forgot to mention that these texts originated in Alexandria Egypt, a centre of Gnostic thought. This is why they are often called “Alexandrian” texts. For those who don’t know, Gnosticism is virtually identical to the modern New Age movement. In fact Chris Rosebrough recently published an expose of the Gnostic heresy. One would think he would be leery of documents originating from the world centre of Gnosticism.

Well over five thousand of the biblical manuscripts are in the family of the Textus Receptus. In other words, over ninety percent of the existing bible manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus, even though it only used seven manuscripts in its compilation!

There are thousands of textual differences between any two members of the Alexandrian text. Real differences. Among the majority text, however, while there may be spelling differences, there is no major difference at all. These texts are so uniform that Textual Critics consider them to be one text, and thus the whole library carries no more weight than one of the corrupt texts!

Rosebrough and Wallace’s emphasis on the seven manuscripts appears to me to be deliberately disingenuous. In fact that is how I would characterize the entire program. They appear to be selectively emphasizing certain facts, while ignoring others of equal or greater significance, in order to create a false impression.

While I have been somewhat impressed with Chris Rosebrough’s program, I must say it now appears to me that he attempts to look like a conservative Christian, in order to sneak in other heresies under the radar. This attack on the Word of God is very disappointing, not to mention dangerous.

Who cares if you expose some of the obvious errors of the Emergent Church, or the Word of Faith heresy, when you actively participate in such a blatant attack on the Word of God?

Both Dan Wallace and Chris Rosebrough need to repent and stop treating the Word of God with such contempt!

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: I Timothy 6:20

Dan Knezacek

For further research;

http://northwye.blog.co.uk/2011/10/15/more-on-the-occult-connections-of-westcott-and-hort-12020525/

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence_morning_star.htm

http://www.biblefortoday.org/Articles/received_text.htm

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.ca/2008/09/criticizing-professor-wallace.html

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.ca/2008/09/criticizing-professor-wallace-part-two.html

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.ca/2008/09/criticizing-professor-wallace-part.html

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.ca/2008/09/criticizing-professor-wallace-part-four.html

Posted in Christian Doctrine | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Does the bible teach that the Temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt?

Posted on September 3, 2013 by dknezacek

Probably the hardest thing to do, for a normal human being, is to accept what the bible says at face value. The words of the bible are not difficult to understand. They were written in the common speech of the day, Hebrew and Greek, and have been translated into the common speech of its intended audience, in our case English.

“Revelation isn’t hard to understand. It’s hard to believe.” – Henry Morris

The history of Christian Eschatology (the Study of End Times biblical prophecies) is full of interpretations by men who rebel at the plain teaching of the bible. While the early church universally believed a futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation, men like Augustine bristled at the idea that Jesus Christ will actually come back and set up an earthly kingdom, and rule for one thousand years.

Men like Augustine, realizing that such an idea puts the Lord at the center of biblical prophecy, came up with man-centered interpretations like Post-millennialism, Amillennialism, and Preterism. These Eschatological schemes, of which Dominionism is a logical conclusion, make the Lord dependent upon the Church to take over control of the world, before Christ can return. These schemes put the Church at the centre of the End Times events, and make the Lord a secondary player! Accordingly such men are busy attempting to create “the Kingdom of God on Earth”, which ultimately is destined to become the kingdom of the Antichrist!

Gary DeMar, in his book 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, writes from a Post-millennialist, Dominionist, perspective. As I have been going through this book I have been amazed at how he constantly twists Scripture. The plain-sense meaning is right in front of him and he refuses to see the truth! The problem is that he approaches Scripture with Post-millennialist blinders on.

Chapter 7, “The Myth that the Temple Needs to be Rebuilt”, is no exception to the general thrust of the book. He doesn’t articulate it this way, but essentially what DeMar is saying is that “The restoration of Israel in 1948 was just a cosmic accident that has nothing to do with the bible or the will of God”!

For a man who claims to be a Reformed scholar, who supposedly believes in the sovereignty of God, somehow he believes that the restoration of Israel is a fact that God somehow missed! Reformed belief emphasizes the sovereignty of God to the point of being rather fatalistic; “It must have been God’s will”, and yet when it comes to Israel, they are adamant that the re-establishment of Israel, and a future Temple, simply cannot be God’s will!

Here is how he begins the chapter;

“A battle is raging over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Many Jews want to see the temple that was destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70 rebuilt to match its former glory. But there is a big obstacle in the way. The Muslim Dome of the Rock now dominates the site, and Muslims claim the Jews have no right to the site. There are millions of Christians who believe a rebuilt temple is a mandatory prerequisite for the rise of antichrist, the great tribulation, and the final battle of Armageddon.” (10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, Gary DeMar, page 103)

His first couple statements are absolutely true, and there is indeed a Muslim structure on the Temple mount, exactly as he says. Furthermore he is correct that the Muslims claim that Jews have no right to the site.

Simply as a Christian, and as a man who believes in justice, I have to ask, why don’t the Jews have a right to the Temple mount? If DeMar believes the bible, as he claims to do, who has legal title to the site?

Speaking from a strictly legal perspective; when someone buys a property, who owns it? The purchaser does. He can give it to whom he wants, and when he dies it is left to his heirs. So, when was the last time the Temple mount was purchased? Did Mohammad, or his followers purchase it? No! They claim the right of conquest, and DeMar appears to agree with them! This amounts to the endorsement of theft!

Throughout the world, except in Islam, land taken in conquest remains under the title of the original owners. Even under communism, land that was stolen was eventually returned to the original owners, or their heirs, some seventy years later!

The last time anyone purchased the Temple mount was when David, king of Israel, purchased it from Araunah (or Ornan) the Jebusite, the original Canaanite owner. No one, except the Jews, David’s heirs, has a right to that piece of real estate! They have a deed witnessed by God Himself;

And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. 2 Samuel 24:24

When you go on vacation, does that mean that someone else can move into your home and call it their own? Israel did not go on vacation, they were taken away as slaves, yet they retained ownership of their land. Notwithstanding the fact that some people did move into their land while they were away, that land still belongs to Israel, to do with as they see fit.

But, what about End Times prophecy, does the bible indicate that there will be an End Times Temple in Jerusalem?

The only time where Revelation speaks of a temple in Jerusalem is in chapter 11:1-2, all the other references are to the Heavenly temple.

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

DeMar claims that the temple that John was commanded to measure had to be the temple that was still standing at the time he wrote, since one couldn’t measure a temple in a vision. There is ample evidence that John wrote long after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, however, and even if he had written before that date, there is no evidence that the early Church understood that the events spoken of in Revelation were related to that event.

Here is an excellent article that helps clear up any questions about the date that John wrote Revelation; https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written

The only way that one can claim that Revelation is a historical prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, is to spiritualize everything in it!

That view makes Nero out to be the Antichrist, yet Nero did not impose a mark on the right hand or on the forehead throughout the world, nor even in the Roman Empire! Nero did not rise from the dead, as the Antichrist will do. Nero died on this earth, and his body is still here, whereas the Antichrist will be picked up alive and thrown bodily into the Lake of Fire.

DeMar claims that the “abomination of Desolation” was accomplished when Antiochus Epiphanes slaughtered a pig on the altar of the Temple, some 180 years before Christ! Jesus must have been ignorant of history when he said;

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: Mark 13:14

Nero did nothing of the sort. Joab was killed while clinging to the horns of the altar, in 2 Kings 2, and that did not constitute an abomination. While Roman troops did kill Jews in the Temple, that does not constitute the abomination of desolation. Those who were there to witness it had no opportunity to flee to the mountains, but were slaughtered, and the few survivors taken captive were made into slaves.

No. The abomination of desolation is a yet future event which will occur in the Temple in Jerusalem. While DeMar denies that the bible demands the Temple will be rebuilt, in order for Jesus’ statement of Mark 13:14, and Matthew 24:15, to be true there must be a future Temple in Jerusalem.

DeMar states “Rebuilt-temple advocates Tommy Ice and Randall Price are forced to admit that “There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.’” As if this provides conclusive proof that there will not be a Temple in Jerusalem. DeMar should be careful when making such statements. There is not statement that “God exists in the form of three persons” either. Does this mean that there is no Trinity?

Logically following his reasoning he must also deny the existence of the Trinity! I am sure DeMar wouldn’t do that, so why is he so inconsistent in his approach to Scripture? Simply because his Eschatology demands a non-literal approach to End Times prophecies.

Now, go back to Revelation 11:1-2 again. Notice the last statement; “But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.”

The Temple mount has been in Gentile hands nearly two thousand years, far longer than the forty two months mentioned here. Forty two months is exactly 3 ½ years. This cannot be a reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem simply because their destruction of it lasted far longer than the time given. Again, this prophecy is a reference to a future event after Israel has once again regained control of the Temple mount.

DeMar states on page 105: “A third temple is required only if the Bible requires it and specifically states the requirement.”

Here’s the thing; The Old Testament requires that the Messiah would die on a Roman cross, but never once spells it out. In the same way the whole bible requires an End Times Temple in Jerusalem.

DeMar tries to confuse the Temple in Jerusalem with the Lord’s body by quoting John 2:21 “But he spake of the temple of his body.” This would be kind of like saying “We don’t need a Temple because WE are the Temple, and God dwells in US!”

 “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16

 DeMar would have us believe that Malachi was saying that the Lord would suddenly come to His body;

 3:1 “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. 2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: 3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.”

 Once again we have another End Times prophecy that makes no sense using the Post-Millennial method of interpretation. This is clearly an End Times prophecy, for everyone “abode” during Christ’s first coming. This is speaking of Christ’s return in judgment. The sons of Levi have yet to make an offering in righteousness.

How can the Lord come to his Temple if none exists? How can He “suddenly come to his body” when he has occupied it for over 2,000 years?

Which Temple was Paul speaking of, in 2 Thessalonians 2, the earthly temple, the temple of Christ’s body, or the Temple of Heaven? Here’s a hint, the Antichrist will not have access to God’s home in Heaven, nor will he take up residence in the hearts of believers!

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Note that since Christ is the Lord, the day of Christ, and the day of the Lord are the same thing.

DeMar would have us believe that the son of perdition was none other than the Roman Emperor Nero, yet, as we have seen, Nero did few of the things the bible specifies as characteristics of the Antichrist. Nero never even made it to Jerusalem, let alone to the Temple. While Titus’ troops destroyed the Temple, he did not declare himself to be God.

The Thessalonian believers were concerned that they were in the Tribulation period, and were worried as a result. Paul was writing them to comfort them, by showing them that the Tribulation had not yet started. Now Gary DeMar is trying to tell us that the Tribulation period is past history, and we need not worry!

Many of the Caesars claimed to be gods, yet none had the audacity to claim they were the God of Gods, but this is exactly what the Antichrist will do;

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36

The “indignation” is the Tribulation period, and it is God’s indignation against the depravity of man. This man will prosper, or succeed, until God is done with him, at the end of the Tribulation. There are many passages that indicate that the whole world will be involved in Armageddon, not merely the armies of the Roman Empire.

Jeremiah 25 contains a list of all the nations who will participate in Armageddon. There are too many to list, and so the author ends by stating “and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth”. Now, the author has already listed the local nations surrounding Israel, so this cannot be them. The plain-sense of the statement must mean all the nations of the world, i.e. the whole world.

The whole world has never attacked Israel together, and will not do so, until the campaign of Armageddon.

Using the Post-Millennial spiritualizing/allegorical methodology, one could say that it meant “many nations”, but that is simply not consistent with the plain sense of the passage. Using such methodology you could make the bible say anything you want! This is the chief advantage of the post-Millennial method, but it is NOT what the original Author intended!

Dan Knezacek

 

 

 

Posted in Book Reviews, Christian Doctrine, Prophecy | Tagged , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

The Syrian Crisis

Posted on August 28, 2013 by dknezacek

The use of chemical weapons in Syria this past week is on everybody’s mind these days. As well it should. Certainly an atrocity occurred, but the major media are not asking pertinent questions;

How do we know that it was the Syrian government itself and not some rogue soldiers within the Syrian army? Certainly there are many rebel sympathizers within the Syrian army, as evidenced by the large number of defections to the rebel side. Is it possible that rebel sympathizers, within the Syrian army, used chemical weapons deliberately to draw the west into their fight?

The Muslim Brotherhood has shown that they are willing to sacrifice their own people for the “greater good”.

The Japanese terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo, on March 20, 1995, launched five Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway system. I have no doubt that other terrorist groups have the same information as Aum Shinrikyo.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, Assad did not attack his own people, until there was a serious attack against his government by rebels. Having been in power for over 40 years who is to say that the government of Syria is not legitimate?  Throughout history this type of government has been the rule, and democracy the exception.

Who says that democracy is the only legitimate form of government? Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt has proved that democracy can be nothing more than mob rule, trampling on the rights of minorities, and excusing atricities! Is this your understanding of democracy? It is not mine, but it appears that this is how any Muslim Brotherhood government will work!

It turns out that the MB has been systematically killing Coptic Christians, and the western media have been covering up the discoveries of mass graves there;

and here

The American support for Morsi makes them accessories to mass murder.

I hate to say it, but a benign dictatorship is superior to Morsi’s malignant version of democracy! At least under Assad, religious minorities have been able to live relatively unmolested. This will not be the case, should the rebels win.

Assad has promised to restore the Golan Heights to Syria, and has failed to carry out his promises! This is the major beef that many of the rebels have against him, and is the reason that the rebellion started in the first place.

The bible has another name for the Golan Heights; Gilead. Gilead is Israeli territory that was given to them by God, and which they occupied from the time of Joshua until long after Solomon.

Assad was wise not to attack Israel, for the purpose of restoring the Golan to Syria, but it angered his enemies.

Now the west is in the position of supporting rebellion in Syria. Ultimately this intervention will lead to Syria’s involvement in the Psalm 83 attack against Israel. There will be a much greater loss of life in that war, and Islam will suffer a huge defeat!

I really suspect that Obama, Cameron, and the rest of the western leadership have no idea what they are doing! By denying the truth of the bible they are walking into a trap, and putting their friends in harm’s way!

There are no “good guys” in the Syrian civil war, but Assad is a “lesser evil”. “Better the devil that you know” is appropriate. The rebels will be worse! Guaranteed!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Circumcision and Sacrifices during the Millennial reign of Christ?

Posted on August 24, 2013 by dknezacek

As I have been reading Gary DeMar’s sixth chapter of 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, I have found myself scratching my head, and asking “Just what is he getting at here?”

The Chapter is titled “The Myth that Animal Sacrifices and Circumcision are Everlasting Rites”.

While the Abrahamic covenant does indeed claim that it is an eternal covenant, the bible from its earliest pages tells us that God would one day circumcise the hearts of His people. Even Moses, who wrote about circumcision, told us that it was God’s intention to circumcise their hearts. Whether people circumcise their sons, or not, is immaterial, but it is not wrong.


Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Deuteronomy 10:16

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. Deuteronomy 30:6

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. Jeremiah 4:4

There are also places in the Old Testament that speak of both circumcision of the flesh AND of the heart, such as Ezekiel 44:7 and 9, but does this mean that those who enter the Temple during the millennial reign will have to submit to physical circumcision? Is this a problem?

The bible certainly does state that Jesus will rule with a rod of iron during his earthly reign (Revelation 2:7, 12:5, 19:15), so what if He does enforce the circumcision part of the covenant? DeMar, as a postmillennialist does not believe that Jesus will return and reign on earth, so the question is wasted on him. What if Jesus requires that only those who are both physically and spiritually circumcised can enter the inner court of the Temple. Would that be a problem? Would a true believer refuse to submit to circumcision if the Lord required it of him?

DeMar’s problem is that he doesn’t believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture of the Church, so he thinks this prohibition will include Church members, who are circumcised in heart. The true Church of Jesus Christ will have already been to Heaven, and will be 100% in bodies like Jesus Christ’s. They will return with Him and can come and go wherever He is, so if there was a prohibition against the uncircumcised it would not apply to the Church, but it might apply to those in natural bodies.

The millennial reign will be a very different time than the one in which we live today.

DeMar’s problem stems from Romans 2:28 versus the Old Testament command;

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Really, I think DeMar’s problem is one of misinterpreting the whole bible. He fails to differentiate between Old Covenant believers and New, and further, between New Covenant believers and Tribulation and Millennium believers. He thinks all believers are the same, but this is not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches that something different happened at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon all believers. Scripture also teaches that this age will end when the Holy Spirit steps out of the way for the Antichrist.

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. II Thessalonians 2:7

In this passage the words “let” and “letteth” mean “hinder” and “hinders”, and appears to be a reference to the Holy Spirit’s unique role through the Church. It is the presence of the Church, with believers permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that hinders the work of the Antichrist spirit.

DeMar would have us believe that this happened some 2,000 years ago, but the context of the passage would dictate that this will happen shortly before, or simultaneously with, the revealing of the Antichrist.

There is no promise, in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit will return and indwell believers, after the rapture of the Church. Once the Church is snatched, that is it! Though those who are left can be saved they will be proselytes of Israel, and not a part of the Church. Since this is the case, would it be a problem if they are required to be circumcised to enter the Sanctuary of the Temple? I think not.

I find it interesting, again and again, that Gary DeMar references a lot of verses, but ignores the context. On page 95 he references Leviticus 6:41 in the context of saying that God will spiritualize the command of circumcision, but he misses the next verse;

41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: 42Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.

In any discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, and the command to circumcise their sons, this passage is very important. God told them, at the beginning, that there would come a time when He would forget, or postpone, his covenant with Israel. Exactly what the Dispensationalists are saying! Isn’t He saying here that He will remember His covenant with their fathers at a time when they do have circumcised hearts? Absolutely!

Today the nation of Israel still does not have circumcised hearts, but He is bringing them back in unbelief as Ezekiel 37:1-8 tells us. There is flesh on the bones, but there is no life in them! Not yet!

He is doing this so that He can do a work in their hearts, with the goal of circumcising them! DeMar is trying to tell us that God can do this work in their hearts while they are scattered among the Gentiles, but 2,700 years in exile has not accomplished this feat! What difference would a few more years make? No. Only the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, the Great Tribulation, will be finally able to soften their hearts.

In this light, is it beyond reason that those who are in fleshly bodies will have to undergo circumcision, both physically and spiritually, before entering the Temple? I think it fits perfectly!

DeMar, however, may actually be on to something, in a backward sort of way; The bible speaks of a final rebellion at the end of the millennial reign (Rev. 20:7-9). Could it be that those uncircumcised, who are excluded from the Temple, will be those who rebel at this time? (Who else?) Will these people be unable to view the sacrifices, and to see the Lord Himself, because of their condition, and thus live in unbelief in the amazing world of the millennium? Not only is this possible, but highly likely.

What of his next point, that the return of animal sacrifices in the Temple of the millennium, is also a myth? Well, I did cover this in my last post, but let’s have another look;

Think about the meaning of this statement from Hebrews.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Hebrews 10:4

Does “not possible” mean that “it could have been possible at some time“? You see, if it was ever possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins, then this statement would be untrue. If it was ever possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin, then Christ would not have had to die on the cross! God never changes, and thus, the sacrifices of the Old Testament temple did not take away their sins.

So why did God institute the sacrificial system? What about Moses’ statements that the sacrifices would accomplish atonement, and forgiveness for sins?

And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him. Leviticus 4:26

And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. Leviticus 4:31

And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him. Leviticus 4:35

And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance: Numbers 15:25

Do we have a contradiction here, between Hebrews 10:4 and the writings of Moses? Do these passages actually say that the sacrifices accomplish propitiation, or satisfaction for sins? No! What God was doing was reacting to their act of faith, and transferring their sin, through time, to the cross of Christ. So they sacrificed animals, and God placed their sin on His Son, and forgave them. It will be the same during the Millennial reign.

The Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of something that was coming. The millennial sacrifices will be a picture of something that has already been accomplished.

If God did not change from at some time between 1500 BC, and the writing of Hebrews, then why would we expect that He would change for the millennial reign of Christ? It appears that the sacrificed offered during the millennial reign will be viewed exactly the same, by God, as they were during the age of Israel.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from DeMar’s book;

“In addition to the reinstitution of circumcision, dispensationalism requires that animal sacrifices for atonement must also be reinstituted. John C. Whitcomb, in his article on “The Millennial Temple” in LaHaye’s Prophecy Study Bible, writes that “five different offerings in Ezekiel (43:13–46:15), four of them with bloodletting, will serve God’s purposes. These offerings are not voluntary but obligatory; God will ‘accept’ people on the basis of these animal sacrifices (43:27), which make reconciliation [atonement] for the house of Israel (45:17, cf. 45:15).” Whitcomb attempts to mollify the problems associated with this unbiblical view by claiming that “the offerings will not take away sin (see Heb. 10:4), but they will be effective in sanctifying Israelites ceremonially because of His infinitely holy presence in their midst.”

This is an impossible interpretation for at least three reasons. First, these sacrifices are said to be “for atonement” (reconciliation) (Ezek. 45:15, 17) not, as Whitcomb claims, “as effective vehicles of divine instruction for Israel and the nations during the Millennial Kingdom.” Second, Jesus is the once for all sacrifice whose blood cleanses us from sin (Heb. 7:26–27; 8:13; 9:11–15; 10:5–22; 1 Peter 3:18). Third, sanctification comes by “the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:26) not by the washing of blood from animal sacrifices. ” (DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, page 99)

Does DeMar think that the Old Testament saints were saved by the sacrifices on the altar of the Temple? Here he is pitting the New Testament against the Old, as if something has changed, yet he himself says that both Old Testament saints, and New, are one in Christ. Something changed, but it wasn’t God. Like many pastors today, DeMar forgets that ALL New Testament saints are permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit, something that was unheard of in Old Testament times.

The millennial sacrifices will be no more, and no less, about atonement than the original Old Testament sacrifices.

As we have seen, the writings of Moses said the same thing about sacrificial atonement that the prophetic passages say about the sacrifices during the Millennial reign.

6Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. Isaiah 56:6-7

And,

15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness. 17 For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. Jeremiah 33:15-18

These passages very clearly state that there will be sacrifices offered during the millennial reign of Christ. DeMar, the Postmillennialists, Amillennialists, and Preterists, are denying the clear teaching of Scripture on this issue. Ultimately this is an attack on the character of God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

The Father has promised the Son an earthly throne, and DeMar denies that the Father will keep this. The Son has stated that He will one day have an earthly throne, but DeMar thinks He was mistaken! (John 18:36b “but NOW is my kingdom not from hence.” It will be at some time!) The Holy Spirit has inspired the entire bible, both Old Testament and New! DeMar makes Him out to be a liar, and sounds so pious in the process!

Once again, the problem with DeMar, as with all postmillennialists, is that he sees no difference between Old Testament saints and New. They reject the rapture of the Church, and the idea that Christ will set up an earthly throne in Jerusalem. In short, they reject and spiritualize every clear prophecy about all these things, all the while claiming to believe the literal interpretation of Scripture!

All church-age believers will be in glorified bodies during the millennial reign of Christ. Their bodies will be like that of Jesus Christ Himself! It matters not whether they were circumcised in the flesh in this life, or not. They will have unrestricted access to the Lord! The re-institution of the Old Testament law will have no affect on their standing with the Lord. The only people affected by this re-institution will be those living in fleshly bodies on the earth…the millennium saints.

The last statement of Jeremiah 33:16 is key to what is happening here; Though sacrifices will be offered during the millennial reign, those who offer them will get their righteousness from the Lord, not from their sacrifices, nor from the law!

In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our righteousness.

The more I read of DeMar’s book, the more alarmed I am getting! I am becoming more and more convinced that this philosophy will become the dominant theology of the Harlot Church of Revelation 17.  It has a form of godliness, but simultaneously denies the power of God!

Dan Knezacek

Posted in Book Reviews, Christian Doctrine, Prophecy | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment