24
Apr
2012
|
Loss of Absolute Truth and Morality, Transformational Marxism and Baby Boomers During the last sixty years - at least - absolute truth and absolute morality have been replaced mostly by a "paradigm s
(0)
(0)
13
Jan
2012
|
Loss of Absolute Truth and Morality, Transformational Marxism and Baby Boomers During the last sixty years - at least - absolute truth and absolute morality have been replaced mostly by a "paradigm shift" toward relative truth, opinion, "lets talk about it," and "how do you feel about it." Dean Gotcher has been exposing this paradigm shift and the use of the dialectic for years. http://authorityresearch.com/ Dean Gotcher has a sixteen part series of audios of his lectures on Theodor W. Adorno. Adorno, a key member of the Frankfurt School, posed as a social and personality psychologist and wrote his highly influential book, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), while he was a professor at Berkeley. Using the Hegelian dialectic, Adorno claimed that the strong family and Christianity cause fascism. But in saying that the family and Christianity cause fascism, to those who believed him, Adorno was really moving them toward Marxism. In fact, this entire movement into transformational Marxism originated in the atheism of Marx, Freud and other 19th century Western intellectuals. Since there is no God, they thought, everything is permitted. Much of contemporary atheism is really from transformational Marxism. Some atheists don't know they have been influenced by Marxism. What Dean Gotcher has been talking about for years is not limited to the dialectic as a deceptive method of attitude and belief change. What Gotcher is talking about in his many audios on the Internet is a paradigm shift - the shift is away from believing that truth and morality is absolute - "it is written" - to a paradigm in which we have opinions which can be shifted by clever "facilitators" who know how to use the dialectic, and to the emphasis upon feelings as man's authentic "self" (Carl Rogers. Gotcher also has a series of lectures on "Uncle" Carl Rogers, once one of my professors at Wisconsin. I was one of the research assistants under Rogers at one time, not because I was a clinical major, but because I was an experimental major and had an interest then in the theories of Carl Rogers. Adorno and others of the Frankfurt School, such as Erick Fromm, and Herbart Marcuse, all of whom Gotcher has lectures on, were transformational Marxists, that is, mostly non-violent Marxists. Carl Rogers was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but became a change agent who had a lot in common with the members of the Frankfurt School. Abraham Maslow was also not part of the German Frankfurt School, but as a psychologist was an important change agent like Carl Rogers. Maslow's main book was Motivation and Personality,1954,1970, 1987. In it he included a study of what he thought were highly creative people. But I was impressed that he did not include Frank Lloyd Wright as one of his "self-actualizers." Maslow may have had an agenda in selecting his "self-actualizers," not to include one of America's most creative and innovative architects, who was also one of our greatest artists. We might date the beginning of the paradigm shift away from absolute truth and morality much earlier than 1950, with the publication of Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. But the attack upon absolute truth and morality really got going in America with the 1950 book of Adorno et al, from their stronghold at Berkeley, California. Transformational Marxism and the dialectic got going in the early fifties and influenced the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. The Baby Boomers, born after 1946 (to about 1964) were the first generation in which almost all members of that age group experienced some degree of influence from transformational Marxism, from the Red Horse of Revelation 6: 4. Transformational Marxism has been called "political correctness," as well as "cultural Marxism." Some might think that Marxism has nothing to do with psychology. And classical Marxists like Trotsky and Lenin would agree. They wanted violent revolution to over throw Capitalism. But violent revolution by classical Marxists to overthrow the economic and political system in the West did not work. The old Soviet Union type of Marxism has been gone for more than twenty years. Now the division is no longer between the Western capitalist democracies and the Eastern Marxist nations of the Soviet Union and Red China, but between the North and the South, the South now being mostly the Islamic nations. However, on some issues and in part China is now allied with the South. The German Frankfurt School combined Marx with Freud. Gotcher talks about two early leaders of the Frankfurt School going to Russia from Germany to talk to some of the classical violent type Marxists, who thought the mixing of Freud with Marx was absurd. The violent Marxists might have shot the cultural-Freudian Marxists, but they didn't for some reason. So, the Frankfurt School - many of whom were sort of psychologists - and psychologists and psychiatrists who had much in common with them, like Carl Rogers and A.H. Maslow, in part from their positions as professors in American major universities helped to create a cultural revolution, the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. Some British members of the elite, like Aldous Huxley. promoted the use of LSD in the U.S. among the educated. The hippies and the drug movement as the core parts of the counterculture were anti-Christian. This anti-Christian attitude fits in with Adorno's agenda to weaken Christianity in the U.S. There were movements associated with the counterculture in the late sixties and during the seventies which not only opposed Christianity but opposed the family. That which opposes the family would fit in with Adorno's agenda. The New Age Occult movement had some connection with the counterculture, though it had origins that go back earlier than the sixties. And - the homosexual and lesbian movements associated in the seventies with the counterculture certainly opposed the family. Self psychology was also allied with the counterculture and it came right out of Rogers and Maslow, whose ideas were allied with Adorno and transformational Marxism. The art bohemian movement, which had roots back in the 19th century, in surrealism of the early 20th century and in New York City abstract expressionism was also linked to the counterculture to some extent. It too opposed Christianity and the family. The fact that the Baby Boomers were the first generation to come under strong influence of the transformational Marxists does not mean that the generations born before 1946 have not also been under some influence from this form of Red Horse Marxism. Some people older than the Baby Boomers have become stronger followers of transformational Marxism and the dialectic than other people from the older generations. But the older generations can remember a time when two plus two was always four. In George Orwell's novel 1984, O'Brien, the "facilitator", is trying to indoctrinate Winston with the Party's dialectic and is trying to shift Winston's reality, what he sees as being true and moral. O'Brien said that two plus two is not always four, but can be some other number. And so a politician like Ron Paul, who is not a Baby Boomer, would be a threat to the powers that be. Many who are older than the Baby Boomers can remember back before the early fifties when truth and morality were more absolute and God's word was "it is written," and the word brought spiritual life. The dialectic as an attitude and belief change procedure depends upon the individual being part of a group, with whom he or she has a relationship. Someone in the role of the facilitator (as in encounter groups, but the group does not have to be a face to face one) interacts verbally with the target person and tries to move him or her away from absolute truth and/or absolute morality. Group acceptance of the target person is used as a reward for shifting positions, and group rejection of "wrong" positions of the target person act as punishment. Dean Gotcher talks about the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is a reward system in the brain, as being involved in the pleasure of a relationship. Any relationship that the target person is in can be used by the facilitator to move the person away from absolutes. Transformational Marxism can be thought of as a position, which starts from atheism and claims there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality. The dialectic is an attitude and belief changing procedure which in itself is not a position, but comes out of that Marxist position. Often in using the dialectic the "facilitator" side steps away from whatever position or thesis the target person presents, and comes against that thesis from the side, in a flanking attack, which is deceptive and sneaky. |
Loss of Absolute Truth and Morality, Transformational Marxism and Baby Boomers During the last sixty years - at least - absolute truth and absolute morality have been replaced mostly by a "paradigm s
(0)
(0)
13
Jan
2012
During the last sixty years - at least - absolute truth and absolute morality have been replaced mostly by a "paradigm shift" toward relative truth, opinion, "lets talk about it," and "how do you feel about it." Dean Gotcher has been exposing this paradigm shift and the use of the dialectic for years. http://authorityresearch.com/ Dean Gotcher has a sixteen part series of audios of his lectures on Theodor W. Adorno. Adorno, a key member of the Frankfurt School, posed as a social and personality psychologist and wrote his highly influential book, The Authoritarian Personality (1950), while he was a professor at Berkeley. Using the Hegelian dialectic, Adorno claimed that the strong family and Christianity cause fascism. But in saying that the family and Christianity cause fascism, to those who believed him, Adorno was really moving them toward Marxism. In fact, this entire movement into transformational Marxism originated in the atheism of Marx, Freud and other 19th century Western intellectuals. Since there is no God, they thought, everything is permitted. Much of contemporary atheism is really from transformational Marxism. Some atheists don't know they have been influenced by Marxism. What Dean Gotcher has been talking about for years is not limited to the dialectic as a deceptive method of attitude and belief change. What Gotcher is talking about in his many audios on the Internet is a paradigm shift - the shift is away from believing that truth and morality is absolute - "it is written" - to a paradigm in which we have opinions which can be shifted by clever "facilitators" who know how to use the dialectic, and to the emphasis upon feelings as man's authentic "self" (Carl Rogers. Gotcher also has a series of lectures on "Uncle" Carl Rogers, once one of my professors at Wisconsin. I was one of the research assistants under Rogers at one time, not because I was a clinical major, but because I was an experimental major and had an interest then in the theories of Carl Rogers. Adorno and others of the Frankfurt School, such as Erick Fromm, and Herbart Marcuse, all of whom Gotcher has lectures on, were transformational Marxists, that is, mostly non-violent Marxists. Carl Rogers was not a member of the Frankfurt School, but became a change agent who had a lot in common with the members of the Frankfurt School. Abraham Maslow was also not part of the German Frankfurt School, but as a psychologist was an important change agent like Carl Rogers. Maslow's main book was Motivation and Personality,1954,1970, 1987. In it he included a study of what he thought were highly creative people. But I was impressed that he did not include Frank Lloyd Wright as one of his "self-actualizers." Maslow may have had an agenda in selecting his "self-actualizers," not to include one of America's most creative and innovative architects, who was also one of our greatest artists. We might date the beginning of the paradigm shift away from absolute truth and morality much earlier than 1950, with the publication of Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality. But the attack upon absolute truth and morality really got going in America with the 1950 book of Adorno et al, from their stronghold at Berkeley, California. Transformational Marxism and the dialectic got going in the early fifties and influenced the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. The Baby Boomers, born after 1946 (to about 1964) were the first generation in which almost all members of that age group experienced some degree of influence from transformational Marxism, from the Red Horse of Revelation 6: 4. Transformational Marxism has been called "political correctness," as well as "cultural Marxism." Some might think that Marxism has nothing to do with psychology. And classical Marxists like Trotsky and Lenin would agree. They wanted violent revolution to over throw Capitalism. But violent revolution by classical Marxists to overthrow the economic and political system in the West did not work. The old Soviet Union type of Marxism has been gone for more than twenty years. Now the division is no longer between the Western capitalist democracies and the Eastern Marxist nations of the Soviet Union and Red China, but between the North and the South, the South now being mostly the Islamic nations. However, on some issues and in part China is now allied with the South. The German Frankfurt School combined Marx with Freud. Gotcher talks about two early leaders of the Frankfurt School going to Russia from Germany to talk to some of the classical violent type Marxists, who thought the mixing of Freud with Marx was absurd. The violent Marxists might have shot the cultural-Freudian Marxists, but they didn't for some reason. So, the Frankfurt School - many of whom were sort of psychologists - and psychologists and psychiatrists who had much in common with them, like Carl Rogers and A.H. Maslow, in part from their positions as professors in American major universities helped to create a cultural revolution, the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. Some British members of the elite, like Aldous Huxley. promoted the use of LSD in the U.S. among the educated. The hippies and the drug movement as the core parts of the counterculture were anti-Christian. This anti-Christian attitude fits in with Adorno's agenda to weaken Christianity in the U.S. There were movements associated with the counterculture in the late sixties and during the seventies which not only opposed Christianity but opposed the family. That which opposes the family would fit in with Adorno's agenda. The New Age Occult movement had some connection with the counterculture, though it had origins that go back earlier than the sixties. And - the homosexual and lesbian movements associated in the seventies with the counterculture certainly opposed the family. Self psychology was also allied with the counterculture and it came right out of Rogers and Maslow, whose ideas were allied with Adorno and transformational Marxism. The art bohemian movement, which had roots back in the 19th century, in surrealism of the early 20th century and in New York City abstract expressionism was also linked to the counterculture to some extent. It too opposed Christianity and the family. The fact that the Baby Boomers were the first generation to come under strong influence of the transformational Marxists does not mean that the generations born before 1946 have not also been under some influence from this form of Red Horse Marxism. Some people older than the Baby Boomers have become stronger followers of transformational Marxism and the dialectic than other people from the older generations. But the older generations can remember a time when two plus two was always four. In George Orwell's novel 1984, O'Brien, the "facilitator", is trying to indoctrinate Winston with the Party's dialectic and is trying to shift Winston's reality, what he sees as being true and moral. O'Brien said that two plus two is not always four, but can be some other number. And so a politician like Ron Paul, who is not a Baby Boomer, would be a threat to the powers that be. Many who are older than the Baby Boomers can remember back before the early fifties when truth and morality were more absolute and God's word was "it is written," and the word brought spiritual life. The dialectic as an attitude and belief change procedure depends upon the individual being part of a group, with whom he or she has a relationship. Someone in the role of the facilitator (as in encounter groups, but the group does not have to be a face to face one) interacts verbally with the target person and tries to move him or her away from absolute truth and/or absolute morality. Group acceptance of the target person is used as a reward for shifting positions, and group rejection of "wrong" positions of the target person act as punishment. Dean Gotcher talks about the neurotransmitter dopamine, which is a reward system in the brain, as being involved in the pleasure of a relationship. Any relationship that the target person is in can be used by the facilitator to move the person away from absolutes. Transformational Marxism can be thought of as a position, which starts from atheism and claims there is no absolute truth and no absolute morality. The dialectic is an attitude and belief changing procedure which in itself is not a position, but comes out of that Marxist position. Often in using the dialectic the "facilitator" side steps away from whatever position or thesis the target person presents, and comes against that thesis from the side, in a flanking attack, which is deceptive and sneaky. |
03
Dec
2011
More On Scattering the Power of the Holy People
Bernard Pyron
In addition to Daniel 12: 5- 7, there are two other places in the Old Testament where holy people is
used. Daniel 12: 5-7 says
The holy people is used also in Daniel 8: 24, "And his power shall be mighty,
but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall
prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy
people."
"He" is not Alexander. In the ancient time line
"He" is fulfilled first by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the Holy People are
physical Israel. However, in the end times, a king who understands
dark sentences is said to "destroy the mighty and holy people," who are Christians.
Who the holy people are depends upon which time line is involved. If the time line indicated as present or future as in prophecy is in the Old Covenant the holy people would be physical Israel, though only a remnant were faithful. If the timeline is in the New Covenant, its the Christians. In Daniel 12: 7
the very end time is indicated clearly by "...when he shall have accomplished to scatter
the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
Though Antiochus Epiphanes was the original model who appears to fulfill Daniel 8:44 in the ancient timeline, in the last days
when the transgressors are come to the full, the king (or kings, world
leaders) of fierce countenance and who understand dark sentences shall stand up (Daniel 8: 23) is
more important in end time prophecy.
Dark sentences is another subject which is interesting. I have heard it said that this is understanding of end
time metaphoric language. Certainly the dragon and his human minions
at the highest level understand something of metaphor. And dark
sentences may refer to the understandings and utterances of men high
in the secret societies, who are world leaders. And - interestingly,
dark sentences can refer to the use of the Hegelian dialectic, to the
dialectical materialism of Marxism and its more recent popularity as a
manipulative and deceptive attitude and belief changing procedure in
dialogue used in many parts of society. Forms of the dialectic are
habitually used by many people now.
The holy people are also in Isaiah 62: 12, "Go through, go through
the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the
highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.
Behold the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, say ye to
the daughter of Zion, Behold thy salvation cometh; behold his reward
is with him, and his word before him. And they shall call them, The
holy people, The redeemed of the Lord: and they shall be called,
Sought out, A cry not forsaken."
Jesus Christ is here in Isaiah 62: 10-12. The holy people are his people,
those born again in him (John 3: 1-8), of any race or ethnic origin (Galatians 3: 28-29) the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, and the chosen generation of I Peter 2: 9.
Bernard Pyron
In addition to Daniel 12: 5- 7, there are two other places in the Old Testament where holy people is
used. Daniel 12: 5-7 says
| "Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. | |
| 6. | And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? |
| 7. | And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. |
The holy people is used also in Daniel 8: 24, "And his power shall be mighty,
but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall
prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy
people."
"He" is not Alexander. In the ancient time line
"He" is fulfilled first by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the Holy People are
physical Israel. However, in the end times, a king who understands
dark sentences is said to "destroy the mighty and holy people," who are Christians.
Who the holy people are depends upon which time line is involved. If the time line indicated as present or future as in prophecy is in the Old Covenant the holy people would be physical Israel, though only a remnant were faithful. If the timeline is in the New Covenant, its the Christians. In Daniel 12: 7
the very end time is indicated clearly by "...when he shall have accomplished to scatter
the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."
Though Antiochus Epiphanes was the original model who appears to fulfill Daniel 8:44 in the ancient timeline, in the last days
when the transgressors are come to the full, the king (or kings, world
leaders) of fierce countenance and who understand dark sentences shall stand up (Daniel 8: 23) is
more important in end time prophecy.
Dark sentences is another subject which is interesting. I have heard it said that this is understanding of end
time metaphoric language. Certainly the dragon and his human minions
at the highest level understand something of metaphor. And dark
sentences may refer to the understandings and utterances of men high
in the secret societies, who are world leaders. And - interestingly,
dark sentences can refer to the use of the Hegelian dialectic, to the
dialectical materialism of Marxism and its more recent popularity as a
manipulative and deceptive attitude and belief changing procedure in
dialogue used in many parts of society. Forms of the dialectic are
habitually used by many people now.
The holy people are also in Isaiah 62: 12, "Go through, go through
the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the
highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.
Behold the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, say ye to
the daughter of Zion, Behold thy salvation cometh; behold his reward
is with him, and his word before him. And they shall call them, The
holy people, The redeemed of the Lord: and they shall be called,
Sought out, A cry not forsaken."
Jesus Christ is here in Isaiah 62: 10-12. The holy people are his people,
those born again in him (John 3: 1-8), of any race or ethnic origin (Galatians 3: 28-29) the spiritual house of I Peter 2: 5, and the chosen generation of I Peter 2: 9.
02
Nov
2011
Revised The Christian Celebrity System: Part One
Bernard Pyron
We are living in an age of deception, un âge de tromperie. A type of
surrealist painting was called "tromper l'œil," or "fool the eye."
Likewise, a celebrity may fool not only the eye, but also the mind.
In the tribulation, which is coming soon, or we may now be in its
early stages - meaning tribulation will get worse later - many church
Christians (and others) will be deceived by false teachers who have
good images - who serve the appearances - and teach false doctrines,
which the church people will accept. They are now being deceived by
false prophets, and its hard to find church Christians who have not
accepted some form of false doctrine, which they received from
celebrities like Hal Lindsey, Grant Jefferies,Tim LaHaye and many
others.
But those who follow the lamb wherever he goes, and have his mind in
them, will not be deceived by Christian celebrities with their lies.
Those of the Remnant as Revelation 14: 5 and Zephaniah 3: 13 say are
not deceivers, because of their love of the truth, which implies they
are also not easily deceived by false doctrines.. In part though,
some who claim to be of the Remnant do sometimes tend to follow
Remnant leaders who have good images rather than those who do not but
have just as much truth.
In II Corinthians 10: 7 Paul asks "Do ye look on things after the
outward appearance? " After the outward appearance is from kata
prospopon, according to appearance. Prospoon can mean the face,
visage, surface, external form, or appearance (Moulton, Harold K. The
Analytical Greek Lexicon revised, 1978, p 353). Prosorolerteo means to
pay regard to external appearance (Moulton, p.353). A prosopoleptes is
a "respecter of persons" in Acts 10: 34.
Christ says in John 7: 24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but
judge righteous judgment."
In our post-Christian culture image is everything. Some years ago,a TV
commercial on NBC for Canon cameras told us that "Image is
everything." In Norman Spinrad's science fiction novel, Bug Jack
Barron (1969) Morris, head of the Republican Party, tells Jack,
"You're a marketable commodity...an image behind which we can
unite...Image, Barron, image is what counts...not the man...never mind
what the real man behind the image is like."
In the image culture success has become more and more a matter of
giving An appearance of being successful and attractive. And the main
game in the worldly culture is to win image and success for oneself.
An artist is successful when he attains to much image.
Network television is responsible for making the the image culture,
created earlier by Hollywood movies, much more
a dominating part of popular culture. Most viewers of network TV were
seduced by a medium that was so deceptive that viewers did not know
they were bring hoodwinked by the dumb show. Network TV weakened the
cognitive abilities of many viewers and also reduced their capability
of detecting deception on TV and in real life.
A person who has been dumbed down by network TV - and by other means
and through other media - is more likely to fall for the messages of
secular and Christian celebrities, than a person who has greater
cognitive abilities to discern lies and truths behind images.
Its interesting that the Greek word "emoranthesan," translated as
"they became fools" in Romans 1: 22, aorist passive, breaks down to
the Greek μωρός (moros), which means, according to the Analytical
Greek Lexicon Revised, by Harold K. Moulton, p.274 "dull, foolish."
Our word "moron" was coined by psychologists from the Greek μωρός, and
Alfred Binet and the Stanford–Binet Intelligence IQ Scale defined the
moron IQ range as being 51-70, superior to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50)
and even more superior to an "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).
So, a person dumbed down by American education, bad food, toxins in
the water and air plus celebrities in the media (including Christian
ones) might be likened to what happened in Paul's description of the
guys who professed themselves to be wise, but "emoranthesan," i.e.,
"they were made dumb," the passive aorist. The one word "emoranthesan"
means "they received dumbness, (or stupidity)."
We are living in an increasing age of cognitive dimness. And spiritual
darkness follows cognitive dimness and deception with its dumbess
regarding truth, especially among church Christians, and increasing
moral insensibility. Often contemporary people cannot tell the
difference between truth and lies - in Christian doctrines and
elsewhere. This is also true in the sciences, though some basics are
agreed upon as working truth.
II Thessalonians 2: 3 says "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." The false teachers
and their followers do not believe their theology is a big part of
this falling away, and so they are deceived. Matthew 24: 11 tells us
that
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."
Both of these scriptures warning of deception zero in on the time of
the end, the tribulation period. II Thessalonians 2: 7-10 says that
during the very end time the man of sin, who in this context of the
falling away, looks like the Second Beast of Revelation 13: 11-18,
which is the Church in the falling away, will operate with deception.
He will mislead church Christians and some others perhaps "...with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness.
In the age of deception at its height, the urge to deceive people,
which is a desire of most, grows out of an evil urge.
Matthew 24: 4- 5, 11 say "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take
heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying,
I am Christ; and shall deceive many..And many false prophets shall
rise, and shall deceive many."
Again, in Matthew 24: 24 Christ warns that " For there shall arise
false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the
very elect."
He is talking about the period of time he describes in Matthew 24: 21
as "...then shall be great tribulation..."
Then II Timothy 3: 1-5, 12-13 warns that "This know also, that in the
last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away....Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus
shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving,
and being deceived."
The "last days" can be the present time. Many of the personality
traits that Paul lists here apply to the "Me Generation," of the
sixties and seventies,of the purple decades, or to the Baby Boomers,
born between 1946 and 1964. And then Paul warns that evil men and
seducers will grow worse and worse. They will deceive many and be
deceived themselves. This prophecy can be applied to the false
prophets of our time, the Christian celebrities. Some of these
Christian celebrities are older than the Baby Boomers, but many are
Baby Boomers.
Bernard Pyron
We are living in an age of deception, un âge de tromperie. A type of
surrealist painting was called "tromper l'œil," or "fool the eye."
Likewise, a celebrity may fool not only the eye, but also the mind.
In the tribulation, which is coming soon, or we may now be in its
early stages - meaning tribulation will get worse later - many church
Christians (and others) will be deceived by false teachers who have
good images - who serve the appearances - and teach false doctrines,
which the church people will accept. They are now being deceived by
false prophets, and its hard to find church Christians who have not
accepted some form of false doctrine, which they received from
celebrities like Hal Lindsey, Grant Jefferies,Tim LaHaye and many
others.
But those who follow the lamb wherever he goes, and have his mind in
them, will not be deceived by Christian celebrities with their lies.
Those of the Remnant as Revelation 14: 5 and Zephaniah 3: 13 say are
not deceivers, because of their love of the truth, which implies they
are also not easily deceived by false doctrines.. In part though,
some who claim to be of the Remnant do sometimes tend to follow
Remnant leaders who have good images rather than those who do not but
have just as much truth.
In II Corinthians 10: 7 Paul asks "Do ye look on things after the
outward appearance? " After the outward appearance is from kata
prospopon, according to appearance. Prospoon can mean the face,
visage, surface, external form, or appearance (Moulton, Harold K. The
Analytical Greek Lexicon revised, 1978, p 353). Prosorolerteo means to
pay regard to external appearance (Moulton, p.353). A prosopoleptes is
a "respecter of persons" in Acts 10: 34.
Christ says in John 7: 24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but
judge righteous judgment."
In our post-Christian culture image is everything. Some years ago,a TV
commercial on NBC for Canon cameras told us that "Image is
everything." In Norman Spinrad's science fiction novel, Bug Jack
Barron (1969) Morris, head of the Republican Party, tells Jack,
"You're a marketable commodity...an image behind which we can
unite...Image, Barron, image is what counts...not the man...never mind
what the real man behind the image is like."
In the image culture success has become more and more a matter of
giving An appearance of being successful and attractive. And the main
game in the worldly culture is to win image and success for oneself.
An artist is successful when he attains to much image.
Network television is responsible for making the the image culture,
created earlier by Hollywood movies, much more
a dominating part of popular culture. Most viewers of network TV were
seduced by a medium that was so deceptive that viewers did not know
they were bring hoodwinked by the dumb show. Network TV weakened the
cognitive abilities of many viewers and also reduced their capability
of detecting deception on TV and in real life.
A person who has been dumbed down by network TV - and by other means
and through other media - is more likely to fall for the messages of
secular and Christian celebrities, than a person who has greater
cognitive abilities to discern lies and truths behind images.
Its interesting that the Greek word "emoranthesan," translated as
"they became fools" in Romans 1: 22, aorist passive, breaks down to
the Greek μωρός (moros), which means, according to the Analytical
Greek Lexicon Revised, by Harold K. Moulton, p.274 "dull, foolish."
Our word "moron" was coined by psychologists from the Greek μωρός, and
Alfred Binet and the Stanford–Binet Intelligence IQ Scale defined the
moron IQ range as being 51-70, superior to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50)
and even more superior to an "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).
So, a person dumbed down by American education, bad food, toxins in
the water and air plus celebrities in the media (including Christian
ones) might be likened to what happened in Paul's description of the
guys who professed themselves to be wise, but "emoranthesan," i.e.,
"they were made dumb," the passive aorist. The one word "emoranthesan"
means "they received dumbness, (or stupidity)."
We are living in an increasing age of cognitive dimness. And spiritual
darkness follows cognitive dimness and deception with its dumbess
regarding truth, especially among church Christians, and increasing
moral insensibility. Often contemporary people cannot tell the
difference between truth and lies - in Christian doctrines and
elsewhere. This is also true in the sciences, though some basics are
agreed upon as working truth.
II Thessalonians 2: 3 says "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." The false teachers
and their followers do not believe their theology is a big part of
this falling away, and so they are deceived. Matthew 24: 11 tells us
that
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."
Both of these scriptures warning of deception zero in on the time of
the end, the tribulation period. II Thessalonians 2: 7-10 says that
during the very end time the man of sin, who in this context of the
falling away, looks like the Second Beast of Revelation 13: 11-18,
which is the Church in the falling away, will operate with deception.
He will mislead church Christians and some others perhaps "...with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness.
In the age of deception at its height, the urge to deceive people,
which is a desire of most, grows out of an evil urge.
Matthew 24: 4- 5, 11 say "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take
heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying,
I am Christ; and shall deceive many..And many false prophets shall
rise, and shall deceive many."
Again, in Matthew 24: 24 Christ warns that " For there shall arise
false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and
wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the
very elect."
He is talking about the period of time he describes in Matthew 24: 21
as "...then shall be great tribulation..."
Then II Timothy 3: 1-5, 12-13 warns that "This know also, that in the
last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away....Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus
shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving,
and being deceived."
The "last days" can be the present time. Many of the personality
traits that Paul lists here apply to the "Me Generation," of the
sixties and seventies,of the purple decades, or to the Baby Boomers,
born between 1946 and 1964. And then Paul warns that evil men and
seducers will grow worse and worse. They will deceive many and be
deceived themselves. This prophecy can be applied to the false
prophets of our time, the Christian celebrities. Some of these
Christian celebrities are older than the Baby Boomers, but many are
Baby Boomers.
30
Oct
2011
Morning of October 30, 2011
Twice in the last year there have been squabbles by some people who
live in the trailer park
next to my place. Once, I thought a woman had literally thrown her
boyfriend out the door and he was yelling and screaming not to hurt
him. She is a big horsey Missouri woman, though not real overweight.
Then a few months later, a different women, younger, maybe even in her
late teens, came running on Idiot road away from the trailer park,
followed by a guy who kept hollering "Pam, come back." Apparently
they were a couple not getting along.
Then, on October 29, 2011, last night just after dark, two men from
the trailer park were on
Idiot road in front of my mobile home screaming at each other. Soon
three squad cars of deputies drove up and they talked to the men for a
while and then left. About 30 minutes later, my dog Traveller was
barking in a way that indicated something was upsetting him.
I went outside with a flashlight and shined it around the yard and saw
nothing, and talked to the dog inside my travel trailer, which is next
to the mobile home. As I started back inside, a sheriff deputy's car
pulled up in front of my mobile home and a deputy got out and unlocked
his trunk and pulled out what appeared to be a high powered rife with
a scope sight on it. Another deputy from another car was on the road
wanting to know who I was. I asked both of them what was going on and
neither answered.
The deputy with the rifle moved fast into my place and kept pointing
the rifle around, including pointing it at my travel trailer where my
dog was barking at him. Instead of telling me what was going on, he
ordered me to stay back.
There was by then three cars of apparently three deputies on Idiot
road in front of my place and in front of the large mobile home
belonging to the L's who live across the road. Then a police car from
the local town pulled up and parked in front of the L place, he
pulled out a hand gun of some kind and was just standing there,
apparently guarding the street while the three deputies were looking
for someone. The deputies apparently were also in the trailer court.
After maybe 30 minutes a deputy brought a man out to the street and
put him into the town police car which drove off with him. The man
appeared to be the same somewhat large guy who was one of the two the
deputies had talked to earlier in front of my place.
I don't even know for sure that the man they finally brought out was
ever on my place. My dog might have been spooked just by the
hollering and screaming about 75 yards away in the south part of the
trailer park.
And - I don't know what story the L's told the sheriff's deputies when
they - apparently - called them the second time. I think they were
the ones who called them because Mrs L was outside talking to the
deputies several times.
It could be that all that as going on was the yelling and screaming.
I don't know if the guy they took away was charged with anything.
But the problem is that the deputy who came on my place without
answering my question was behaving like he was part of a swat team -
and there may not have been justification for a swat team type of
action.
I have never heard of a swat team type raid before in this county. The
deputies killed a guy in the town a few years ago on a routine traffic
stop, who resisted them, so the report in the newspaper said. Last
night the three deputies appeared to be poorly trained.
But the sheriff and his deputies do not enforce the speed limit of 30
MPH on the road, and people drive 50 to 60 miles an hour through this
residential area. I think the reason they treat the area as they do -
including not talking to me as the owner of the place they invaded -
is because its sort of a lower class area. A more
middle class area would probably not put up with the sheriff allowing people to
drive 50 to 60 through a residential area.
Twice in the last year there have been squabbles by some people who
live in the trailer park
next to my place. Once, I thought a woman had literally thrown her
boyfriend out the door and he was yelling and screaming not to hurt
him. She is a big horsey Missouri woman, though not real overweight.
Then a few months later, a different women, younger, maybe even in her
late teens, came running on Idiot road away from the trailer park,
followed by a guy who kept hollering "Pam, come back." Apparently
they were a couple not getting along.
Then, on October 29, 2011, last night just after dark, two men from
the trailer park were on
Idiot road in front of my mobile home screaming at each other. Soon
three squad cars of deputies drove up and they talked to the men for a
while and then left. About 30 minutes later, my dog Traveller was
barking in a way that indicated something was upsetting him.
I went outside with a flashlight and shined it around the yard and saw
nothing, and talked to the dog inside my travel trailer, which is next
to the mobile home. As I started back inside, a sheriff deputy's car
pulled up in front of my mobile home and a deputy got out and unlocked
his trunk and pulled out what appeared to be a high powered rife with
a scope sight on it. Another deputy from another car was on the road
wanting to know who I was. I asked both of them what was going on and
neither answered.
The deputy with the rifle moved fast into my place and kept pointing
the rifle around, including pointing it at my travel trailer where my
dog was barking at him. Instead of telling me what was going on, he
ordered me to stay back.
There was by then three cars of apparently three deputies on Idiot
road in front of my place and in front of the large mobile home
belonging to the L's who live across the road. Then a police car from
the local town pulled up and parked in front of the L place, he
pulled out a hand gun of some kind and was just standing there,
apparently guarding the street while the three deputies were looking
for someone. The deputies apparently were also in the trailer court.
After maybe 30 minutes a deputy brought a man out to the street and
put him into the town police car which drove off with him. The man
appeared to be the same somewhat large guy who was one of the two the
deputies had talked to earlier in front of my place.
I don't even know for sure that the man they finally brought out was
ever on my place. My dog might have been spooked just by the
hollering and screaming about 75 yards away in the south part of the
trailer park.
And - I don't know what story the L's told the sheriff's deputies when
they - apparently - called them the second time. I think they were
the ones who called them because Mrs L was outside talking to the
deputies several times.
It could be that all that as going on was the yelling and screaming.
I don't know if the guy they took away was charged with anything.
But the problem is that the deputy who came on my place without
answering my question was behaving like he was part of a swat team -
and there may not have been justification for a swat team type of
action.
I have never heard of a swat team type raid before in this county. The
deputies killed a guy in the town a few years ago on a routine traffic
stop, who resisted them, so the report in the newspaper said. Last
night the three deputies appeared to be poorly trained.
But the sheriff and his deputies do not enforce the speed limit of 30
MPH on the road, and people drive 50 to 60 miles an hour through this
residential area. I think the reason they treat the area as they do -
including not talking to me as the owner of the place they invaded -
is because its sort of a lower class area. A more
middle class area would probably not put up with the sheriff allowing people to
drive 50 to 60 through a residential area.
29
Oct
2011
More On the I John 5: 7-8 - the Trinity - Issue
Bernard Pyron
On a Chistian forum someone wrote on I John 5: 7-8 - the trinity - that
"The passage in question was never part of the bible...even erasmus knew it didn't belong... he kept it out of his textus receptus until the third edition...when he added it in response to pressure from powerful roman authorities...the passage seems to have originated as a corruption in a few spanish copies of the latin vulgate around the seventh century... its spanish origin suggests that it may have been added to strengthen the doctrine of the trinity in opposition to the trinity rejecting muslims who were threatening spain at that time."
The issue of the wording of I John 5: 7-8 begins with the large difference between the wording
in the Textus Receptus Greek text and the Westcott-Hort text:
Textus Receptus for I John 5: 7-8:
oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin
kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin
Because three there are who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one and these three there are who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood; and the three to the one are.
Westcott-Hort for I John 5:7-8:
oti treis eisin oi marturontes o pneuma kai to udor kau to anima kai treis eis to en eisin
For three are testify the Spirit and the water and the blood and three in the agreement are
The Westcott-Hort leaves out many words and reduces the text to a very abbreviated version which
does not explain the trinity as fully as does the Textus Receptus.
Following the Textus Receptus the King James Version says for I John 5: 7-8:
"For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
And, based largely upon the Westcott-Hort, the New International Version says: ""For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."
And the Douay-Rheims says: " And there are three who give testimony
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three
are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
The Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the Textus Receptus and King
James. Its interesting that the Douay-Rheims has a clearer statement of the
doctrine of the trinity than the modern translations from
Westcott-Hort. The statement quoted above from a person on a
Christian forum suggests that the more elaborated Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8
was promoted by the Roman Catholics. The reasoning here might be that since the Roman
Catholic Bibles have a wording for this text close to the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine, and Old Latin
or Waldensian Bible which was prior to Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible, that the very brief Westcott-Hort Alexandarian version must be right. Somehow the implication might be that the Catholics have promoted the doctrine of the trinity.
But the problem is that
the King James wording for I John 5: 7-8 is said by the followers of
Westcot-Hort not to exist in early Greek texts. The NIV Study Bible
says that I John 5:7 "...is not found in any Greek manuscript or New
Testament translation prior to the 16th century."
The quote below is from:
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.or...n/fbcdoesa.htm
"It is not true that I John 5:7 is absent in all pre-16th century
Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found
in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before
the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636).
Furthermore, there is abundant support for I John 5:7f from the Latin
translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and
many of them contain 1 John 5:7; the really important ones being the
Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and
Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin
manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of
them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from
the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that I John 5:7
has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost."
I John 5: 7-8 in the wording of the Textus Receptus is in two eighth
century Greek texts, the
Wizanburgensis and the Basiliensis. Basiliensis is now kept at Basel,
Switzerland and Wizanburgensis
is in the the Dublin University Library.
There may be copies available of the Wizanburgensis and the
Basiliensis. Why not try to find out whether I John 5: 7-8
in the Textus Receptus wording is in these two eighth century Greek
texts, rather than quoting some "Bible scholars?"
The question is why do Christians
want to believe some "Bible Scholars"
and the The NIV Study Bible that I John 5:7 is not found in any Greek
manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century."
On http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
it is said that: "It is
somewhat understandable that those who rely upon information given to
them by others (Hiebert, Ryrie, etc.) would repeat the assertions made
by textual scholars. It is less understandable that scholars like
Metzger and the Alands, who ought very well to have access to the full
body of information on this subject, would continue to propagate
claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture.
The disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual
critics results in confusion among the ranks of God's people
concerning the Scriptures, which can only serve to divide and weaken
the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged with
keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy 3:15)."
They say "... we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin
version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of
Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century.25 As such, the
Old Latin version is an important foundation for examination of
evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognized because, due to its
antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek
manuscripts..."
" We should note that verse does appear in the text of Codex
Wizanburgensis, a Vulgate manuscript dating to the mid-8th
century....Dabney cites this manuscript as a very early Greek witness
to the Comma - see Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal
Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical
and Theological, Vol. 1 (1891), p. 381. It first appeared in the
Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871.... Bengel, on his part,
lists Wizanbergensis (99) as a Vulgate ms. from the 8th century that
contains the Comma (see J.A. Bengel, E. Bengel, J.C.F. Steudel, and
A.R. Faucette, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 136, in the
notes)."
They cite Cyprian, a North African bishop, who quotes a part of I
John 5: 7-8 as found in the Textus Receptus in about 250 AD. He
writes,
"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in
opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church,
scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are
one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"- Cyprian, On the Unity of
the Catholic Church, Ch. 6
On the claim that Erasmus included the present Textus Receptus wording
of I John 5: 7-8 on the basis of a fake Greek text they say: "It is
said that he was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first two
editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he
would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found
which contained the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that
be dashed off a copy of the Greek New Testament, complete with Comma,
and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet and dripping. He thus
included the Comma on this "evidence".
"However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the
Received Text, it has little support in fact...Modern scholars will
claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex
Montfortianus, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was
produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus
states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon
the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex."
"Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek
manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New
Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century."
My comment: Erasmus used several Byzantine Greek texts more recent
than the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which were used by
Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. One site,
The Holy Bible says
that Erasmus used six to eight Greek texts from the 11th, 12th, 13th
and 15th centuries, apparently two manuscripts with different copies.
The issue of the Textus Receptus verses the Westcott-Hort wording for
I John 5: 7-8 is similar to the old argument between the Textus
Receptus as based on a set of late Byzantine Greek texts and the
Westcott-Hort text based on the older fourth century Alexzandarian
texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Byzantine texts,
associated with Antioch, Syria, copied over the centuries by Bible
scribes, did not last in the more humid climate they were created and
used in as well as did the older Greek texts associated with
Alexandria, Egypt. The older texts survived better in the dry climate
of Egypt. So, the Byzantine type texts that existed in the fourth
century and earlier, that could have contained the Textus Receptus
wording on the Trinity, did not survive. The Byzantine texts Erasmus
had were late, from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. Had a Papyri
fragment from the fourth century or earlier containing the Textus
Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8 been found in Egypt, this would be
good evidence for the Textus Receptus wording's earlier existence.
Though some Papyri fragments with Textus Receptus type wordings have
been found in Egypt, apparently so far none have included the critical
text on the Trinity.
But you cannot argue from silence - that the Textus Receptus wording
did not exist in very early copies of the New Testament.
On http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html
they say: ""It is
noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3)
Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome,
he did not use Codex Vaticanus (B) when compiling the first printed
text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose
text is the basis for most modern translations.)...It is therefore
evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy
and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did
Tregelles in the 19th Century."
Its not a good idea to get into endless argument, involving the use of the dialectic, over I John 5: 7-8, and the obvious difference between the Textus Receptus wording and that of the Westcott-Hort. The Westcott-Hort
Greek text versus the Textus Receptus is a fruitful subject for the practice of the dialectic. Avoid the dialectic, and stick to good scholarship and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Bernard Pyron
On a Chistian forum someone wrote on I John 5: 7-8 - the trinity - that
"The passage in question was never part of the bible...even erasmus knew it didn't belong... he kept it out of his textus receptus until the third edition...when he added it in response to pressure from powerful roman authorities...the passage seems to have originated as a corruption in a few spanish copies of the latin vulgate around the seventh century... its spanish origin suggests that it may have been added to strengthen the doctrine of the trinity in opposition to the trinity rejecting muslims who were threatening spain at that time."
The issue of the wording of I John 5: 7-8 begins with the large difference between the wording
in the Textus Receptus Greek text and the Westcott-Hort text:
Textus Receptus for I John 5: 7-8:
oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin
kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin
Because three there are who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one and these three there are who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood; and the three to the one are.
Westcott-Hort for I John 5:7-8:
oti treis eisin oi marturontes o pneuma kai to udor kau to anima kai treis eis to en eisin
For three are testify the Spirit and the water and the blood and three in the agreement are
The Westcott-Hort leaves out many words and reduces the text to a very abbreviated version which
does not explain the trinity as fully as does the Textus Receptus.
Following the Textus Receptus the King James Version says for I John 5: 7-8:
"For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
And, based largely upon the Westcott-Hort, the New International Version says: ""For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."
And the Douay-Rheims says: " And there are three who give testimony
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three
are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
The Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the Textus Receptus and King
James. Its interesting that the Douay-Rheims has a clearer statement of the
doctrine of the trinity than the modern translations from
Westcott-Hort. The statement quoted above from a person on a
Christian forum suggests that the more elaborated Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8
was promoted by the Roman Catholics. The reasoning here might be that since the Roman
Catholic Bibles have a wording for this text close to the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine, and Old Latin
or Waldensian Bible which was prior to Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible, that the very brief Westcott-Hort Alexandarian version must be right. Somehow the implication might be that the Catholics have promoted the doctrine of the trinity.
But the problem is that
the King James wording for I John 5: 7-8 is said by the followers of
Westcot-Hort not to exist in early Greek texts. The NIV Study Bible
says that I John 5:7 "...is not found in any Greek manuscript or New
Testament translation prior to the 16th century."
The quote below is from:
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.or...n/fbcdoesa.htm
"It is not true that I John 5:7 is absent in all pre-16th century
Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found
in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before
the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636).
Furthermore, there is abundant support for I John 5:7f from the Latin
translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and
many of them contain 1 John 5:7; the really important ones being the
Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and
Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin
manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of
them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from
the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that I John 5:7
has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost."
I John 5: 7-8 in the wording of the Textus Receptus is in two eighth
century Greek texts, the
Wizanburgensis and the Basiliensis. Basiliensis is now kept at Basel,
Switzerland and Wizanburgensis
is in the the Dublin University Library.
There may be copies available of the Wizanburgensis and the
Basiliensis. Why not try to find out whether I John 5: 7-8
in the Textus Receptus wording is in these two eighth century Greek
texts, rather than quoting some "Bible scholars?"
The question is why do Christians
want to believe some "Bible Scholars"
and the The NIV Study Bible that I John 5:7 is not found in any Greek
manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century."
On http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
it is said that: "It is
somewhat understandable that those who rely upon information given to
them by others (Hiebert, Ryrie, etc.) would repeat the assertions made
by textual scholars. It is less understandable that scholars like
Metzger and the Alands, who ought very well to have access to the full
body of information on this subject, would continue to propagate
claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture.
The disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual
critics results in confusion among the ranks of God's people
concerning the Scriptures, which can only serve to divide and weaken
the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged with
keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy 3:15)."
They say "... we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin
version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of
Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century.25 As such, the
Old Latin version is an important foundation for examination of
evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognized because, due to its
antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek
manuscripts..."
" We should note that verse does appear in the text of Codex
Wizanburgensis, a Vulgate manuscript dating to the mid-8th
century....Dabney cites this manuscript as a very early Greek witness
to the Comma - see Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal
Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical
and Theological, Vol. 1 (1891), p. 381. It first appeared in the
Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871.... Bengel, on his part,
lists Wizanbergensis (99) as a Vulgate ms. from the 8th century that
contains the Comma (see J.A. Bengel, E. Bengel, J.C.F. Steudel, and
A.R. Faucette, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 136, in the
notes)."
They cite Cyprian, a North African bishop, who quotes a part of I
John 5: 7-8 as found in the Textus Receptus in about 250 AD. He
writes,
"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in
opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church,
scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are
one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"- Cyprian, On the Unity of
the Catholic Church, Ch. 6
On the claim that Erasmus included the present Textus Receptus wording
of I John 5: 7-8 on the basis of a fake Greek text they say: "It is
said that he was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first two
editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he
would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found
which contained the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that
be dashed off a copy of the Greek New Testament, complete with Comma,
and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet and dripping. He thus
included the Comma on this "evidence".
"However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the
Received Text, it has little support in fact...Modern scholars will
claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex
Montfortianus, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was
produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus
states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon
the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex."
"Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek
manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New
Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century."
My comment: Erasmus used several Byzantine Greek texts more recent
than the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which were used by
Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. One site,
The Holy Bible says
that Erasmus used six to eight Greek texts from the 11th, 12th, 13th
and 15th centuries, apparently two manuscripts with different copies.
The issue of the Textus Receptus verses the Westcott-Hort wording for
I John 5: 7-8 is similar to the old argument between the Textus
Receptus as based on a set of late Byzantine Greek texts and the
Westcott-Hort text based on the older fourth century Alexzandarian
texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Byzantine texts,
associated with Antioch, Syria, copied over the centuries by Bible
scribes, did not last in the more humid climate they were created and
used in as well as did the older Greek texts associated with
Alexandria, Egypt. The older texts survived better in the dry climate
of Egypt. So, the Byzantine type texts that existed in the fourth
century and earlier, that could have contained the Textus Receptus
wording on the Trinity, did not survive. The Byzantine texts Erasmus
had were late, from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. Had a Papyri
fragment from the fourth century or earlier containing the Textus
Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8 been found in Egypt, this would be
good evidence for the Textus Receptus wording's earlier existence.
Though some Papyri fragments with Textus Receptus type wordings have
been found in Egypt, apparently so far none have included the critical
text on the Trinity.
But you cannot argue from silence - that the Textus Receptus wording
did not exist in very early copies of the New Testament.
On http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html
they say: ""It is
noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3)
Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome,
he did not use Codex Vaticanus (B) when compiling the first printed
text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose
text is the basis for most modern translations.)...It is therefore
evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy
and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did
Tregelles in the 19th Century."
Its not a good idea to get into endless argument, involving the use of the dialectic, over I John 5: 7-8, and the obvious difference between the Textus Receptus wording and that of the Westcott-Hort. The Westcott-Hort
Greek text versus the Textus Receptus is a fruitful subject for the practice of the dialectic. Avoid the dialectic, and stick to good scholarship and the leading of the Holy Spirit.
18
Oct
2011
Dispensationalism's Literalist Hermeneutic and the Theology's Fixation Upon The Physical
Bernard Pyron
Bernard Pyron
|
An important question is whether ekklesia was used widely in the period before 380 A.D. to refer to the Body of Christ as being different from Israel reborn in Christ. Roman Catholicism became the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 A.D. The Catholic Church institutionalized the 'capital C "Church," as being the Body of Christ different from Israel, though the term ekklesia or "church" was in use before Catholicism. This institutionalization of the capital C "Church" is what is meant by "replacement theology." Yet the dispensationalists continue this use of the capital C "Church," but place it alongside and sort of inferior in ways to "Israel," or "All Israel." And to what extent did Calvinism and Lutheranism during the Reformation continue to refer to the capital C "Church" as the Body of Christ? In his commentary on Romans 11: 26 - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ Galatians 6: 16 "The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his faith." "He" is Paul. Apparently in covenant theology "Israel and the Church are in essence the same entity, the "elect people" of God ..." according to www.christinyou.net/pages/ On http://www.mountainretreatorg. Calvinist, Richard L. Pratt Jr says ""In line with Calvin's view, it is common for Reformed theologians to speak of Israel as the church and the church as Israel."15 15 Clowney, Edmund P. The Church. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995, pp. 42-44. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993, vol. 3, pp. 548-552 The only source on orthodox Lutheranism I have handy is from http://www.opednews.com/ Sunod Lutheran says "The theology of the Reformation as held by the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, of which I became a member some years back) is basically the same doctrine as held by the founders of our nation, who were largely Calvinists. Luther and Calvin were contemporaries and had their differences, so the Lutheran church has some doctrinal differences with the Calvinist theology. But But both reject the dispensationalist view as a latter day delusion..." The postulate that the Bible must be consistently interpreted in a literal way is very important in dispensationalism The classical dispensationalists say their claim that "Israel" in scripture must always be physical Israel derives from their consistent literal "hermeneutic," from the pagan god Hermes. Their literal hermeneutic goes along with their insistence that "all Israel" must be honored, which includes everybody who has or claims to have the DNA of Abraham, and all Israelites who rejected Christ and continue to do so are part of their "all Israel." They took over most of the evangelical denominations in a few years after the Niagra Bible Conference (1876 to 1897) and the first edition of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. They almost made evangelical Christianity into another faith, and did make it into another Gospel within the general structure of institutionalized Christianity. This "other Gospel" (Galatians 1: 6-9) within the organized Christian "church" serves to honor "all Israel." There is no New Testament scripture saying "all Israel" remains the chosen people. There is no more entry into Israel by birth, no more racism, and arguments about those who claim to be Jews but don't have the DNA of Abraham are arguments within the flesh, not within the Spirit. The literalist hermeneutic of dispensationalism goes along with its honoring of the Israel of the Old Covenant. There were clearly individuals within the Old Covenant who were led by the Spirit, these were a Remnant. But the majority of Israelites which dispensationalism honors were operating in the physical, in the carnal nature of man, not in the spirit. We can begin to ask to what extent classical dispensationalism, in honoring physical Israel, and some early dispensationalists placed Israelites above Gentile Christians in the thousand year Kingdom, were fixated on the physical level. Dispensationalism's literalist bent plays into the physical. Take a scripture like Romans 8: 1, 9: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit..But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Dispensationalists may give lip service to this text, but is it really true of where they have positioned themselves, in honoring "all Israel" so much and focusing upon the literal-physical? "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" They are fearful of metaphoric understandings, and sometimes fearful of tying a thread of scriptures together into an overall meaning, unless that meaning fully agrees with their theology. And they are sometimes uneasy about using scripture to interpret scripture, rather than their theology, because in interpreting a scripture by other Bible texts, this might be "spiritualizing" the text, something they want to avoid at all costs. There are their key texts, like Romans 11: 26, for which they will reject all use of other scriptures in interpreting |
17
Oct
2011
Some Occupy Wall Street Protesters Cannot Think Outside of the Dialectic
Bernard Pyron
Occupy Wall Street is an interesting
beginning of a movement. The controlled media is working hard to
discredit it, which means the ruling elite considers it a threat to
some degree.
However, look at what Paul Joseph Watson says below:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26912
Occupy Wall Street Protesters suckered into a trap
by Paul Joseph Watson Global Research, October 3, 2011
Infowars.com
Watson writes about the responses of the Occupy Wall Street protesters to journalist Adam Kokesh in his interviews with some of them. Then Watson says "The ignorance displayed in these interviews knows no bounds. The
protesters just don’t get it. They are calling for the government to
use force to impose their ideas, all in the name of bringing down
corporations who they don’t realize have completely bought off
government regulators. Corporations and government enjoy a mutually
beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine
and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to
compete in a free market economy that barely exists.
The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters”
is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an
entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which
seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically
assaulted by police in the same breath.
One woman interviewed by Kokesh also announces her intention to help
Obama to capture a second term. How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall
Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign
was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall
Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with
Wall Street operatives?
Something is very wrong with this picture.
The usual suspects, mega-rich foundations and elitists, behind the
young radicals have also started to emerge – George Soros, The Ruckus
Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
“The belated crusade against Wall Street is even more pathetic as it
is coordinated by groups who wouldn’t exist without men like Soros,
who made their money from deals that make the Street look sparkling
clean. It’s class warfare as a cynical jab at the populist center, the
people who mutter to themselves that the Street is full of crooks and
so is Congress,” writes Daniel Greenfield."
The ruling elite uses the dialectic over and over to manipulate
the "Sheeple."
The national elections are a form of the dialectic. Use the very
powerful national media to get a guy elected president who works for the ruling elite
and helps destroy the country, like Slick Willie. Slick Willie was
the "thesis." Then they brought out another guy who also worked for the elite, George W. Bush, and
as a reaction against Clinton, the sheeple elected him. He was not
liked and as a "thesis" in the Hegelian dialectic, the elite and the
media gave us Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was
born in Kenya, (maybe) and became a kind of latter
day Chicago hack politician. Barry was the "antithesis" to George W.
The protesters cannot get their thinking out of the dialectic. They
think the only way to stop the financial elite is by big government.
But the financial elite and what Revelation 13 calls the Beast, the
first beast, are one and the same. The people would have to somehow replace the present federal government with one not run by elites, AND change the way money is created and loaned out to fuel
But - the Lord's plan is not to replace big government run by the elite and put a stop to the power of the rich men of the earth at this point in time. The U.S. will be judged.
"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through which they come." Luke 17: 1 Revelation 6: 15-16 mentions that the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich will hide themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains and they say to the mountains to hide us from the face of him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. I would not want to be in the shoes of the financial elite or heads of the huge banks who have not repented when that happens.
The
deadly wound to the U.S. may involve in part some kind of popular
uprising, which might be partly successful, but will bring more harm
on the country, plus the ruling elite will bring harm on it in fighting
that revolution.
I don't know for sure this will happen, but its a possibility
The people turned away from God, and Barry and the big government, as
well as the big bankers are the Lord's vessels of dishonor to punish
the people, just as the Lord used Babylon to defeat and take captive
Old Israel in apostasy.
This does not mean a Christian should not expose the big government,
Barry, and the financial lite for the crooks they are. And it does not mean
that there should be no popular, Christian or intellectual criticism at all, in any form, of the big bankers for driving the nation into a prolonged recession or depression.
Bernard Pyron
Occupy Wall Street is an interesting
beginning of a movement. The controlled media is working hard to
discredit it, which means the ruling elite considers it a threat to
some degree.
However, look at what Paul Joseph Watson says below:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26912
Occupy Wall Street Protesters suckered into a trap
by Paul Joseph Watson Global Research, October 3, 2011
Infowars.com
Watson writes about the responses of the Occupy Wall Street protesters to journalist Adam Kokesh in his interviews with some of them. Then Watson says "The ignorance displayed in these interviews knows no bounds. The
protesters just don’t get it. They are calling for the government to
use force to impose their ideas, all in the name of bringing down
corporations who they don’t realize have completely bought off
government regulators. Corporations and government enjoy a mutually
beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine
and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to
compete in a free market economy that barely exists.
The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters”
is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an
entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which
seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically
assaulted by police in the same breath.
One woman interviewed by Kokesh also announces her intention to help
Obama to capture a second term. How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall
Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign
was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall
Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with
Wall Street operatives?
Something is very wrong with this picture.
The usual suspects, mega-rich foundations and elitists, behind the
young radicals have also started to emerge – George Soros, The Ruckus
Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
“The belated crusade against Wall Street is even more pathetic as it
is coordinated by groups who wouldn’t exist without men like Soros,
who made their money from deals that make the Street look sparkling
clean. It’s class warfare as a cynical jab at the populist center, the
people who mutter to themselves that the Street is full of crooks and
so is Congress,” writes Daniel Greenfield."
The ruling elite uses the dialectic over and over to manipulate
the "Sheeple."
The national elections are a form of the dialectic. Use the very
powerful national media to get a guy elected president who works for the ruling elite
and helps destroy the country, like Slick Willie. Slick Willie was
the "thesis." Then they brought out another guy who also worked for the elite, George W. Bush, and
as a reaction against Clinton, the sheeple elected him. He was not
liked and as a "thesis" in the Hegelian dialectic, the elite and the
media gave us Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack Hussein Obama II, who was
born in Kenya, (maybe) and became a kind of latter
day Chicago hack politician. Barry was the "antithesis" to George W.
The protesters cannot get their thinking out of the dialectic. They
think the only way to stop the financial elite is by big government.
But the financial elite and what Revelation 13 calls the Beast, the
first beast, are one and the same. The people would have to somehow replace the present federal government with one not run by elites, AND change the way money is created and loaned out to fuel
But - the Lord's plan is not to replace big government run by the elite and put a stop to the power of the rich men of the earth at this point in time. The U.S. will be judged.
"It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through which they come." Luke 17: 1 Revelation 6: 15-16 mentions that the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich will hide themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains and they say to the mountains to hide us from the face of him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. I would not want to be in the shoes of the financial elite or heads of the huge banks who have not repented when that happens.
The
deadly wound to the U.S. may involve in part some kind of popular
uprising, which might be partly successful, but will bring more harm
on the country, plus the ruling elite will bring harm on it in fighting
that revolution.
I don't know for sure this will happen, but its a possibility
The people turned away from God, and Barry and the big government, as
well as the big bankers are the Lord's vessels of dishonor to punish
the people, just as the Lord used Babylon to defeat and take captive
Old Israel in apostasy.
This does not mean a Christian should not expose the big government,
Barry, and the financial lite for the crooks they are. And it does not mean
that there should be no popular, Christian or intellectual criticism at all, in any form, of the big bankers for driving the nation into a prolonged recession or depression.
11
Oct
2011
Discussion of Romans 11: 11
Bernard Pyron
On a Christian forum a guy said: "It's the faithful remnant that God is after, the remnant that will truly be saved. The fallen ones are not. And yet what is the question Paul asks and answers in Romans 11:11? "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!"Why is this verse always missed? Paul has distinguished between remnant Israel and fallen Israel, faithful Israel and unfaithful Israel, and yet here Paul states that fallen Israel has not fallen beyond recovery, that all Israel will be saved (v. 26). If he were speaking only of faithful remnant Israel being saved, why then does he even ask the question of fallen Israel? Certainly remnant Israel is not the subject of his question."
Romans 11: 11: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Romans 11: 19-21: "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee."
On the surface in Romans 11: 11 Paul would appear to contradict himself, because he says in the first sentence, "Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid." But then in the second sentence he says "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles..." He asked if they have stumbled that they should fall and seems to say no. But in the next sentence he says through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles. In one place he says they didn't fall and in another place he says they did fall. There is more going on here than what appears on the surface.
II Peter 3: 15-16 warns us about not understanding Paul: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
One scripture like Romans 11: 11, which is not immediately clear in its surface wording, cannot be used to support a man-made theology. Romans 11: 11 has to be interpreted by other scriptures. Look above at what he says in Romans 11: 19-21. Who is 'they" who were broken off?
If Paul is saying that the Israelites who rejected Christ were broken off in verses 11: 19-20, is he saying in verses 11: 11 and 11: 26 that those broken off will some day be brought back in?
There are other verses in the New Testament which are also relevant here. Matthew 8: 11-12: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And John 1: 11: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."
And even the parable of the vine in John 15: 5-6 is relevant because Christ pruned down physical Israel, as a tree is pruned so that it produces more fruit. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." And in Matthew 3: 10 John the Baptist says "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
In the parable of the vine of John 15: 5-6 the time when physical Israel is pruned down to a small remnant is not indicated. Why would not this pruning down occur in part after the Cross and after the Day of Pentecost, as well as before the Cross? And Matthew 8: 11-12 indicates those pruned away are not brought back in.
The theology which honors "all Israel" is a more radical departure from New Testament doctrine than many would like to believe.
I noticed that the guy on the forum whose comment I quoted above is using the New International Version for Romans 11: 11. Lets see what the problem might be with this verse in the NIV.
New Revised Standard: "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."
American Standard Version: "I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy."
New American Standard Version: "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous."
King James Version: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."
New International Version: "Again I ask; Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. Rather, because of their transgression, salvation is come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
The NIV claims to have used the Nestle-Aland Greek text, which is based on Tischendorf, and Westcott-Hort, which, in turn are based on the Alexandarian type manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Greek texts.
Lets see if there is any difference in the Greek text between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort for Romans 11: 11:
Textus Receptus Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτους
Westcott-Hort Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτου
There is no substantial difference in these two Greek texts. The Textus Receptus ends with "autous" and the Westcott-Hort has "autou," for "them, " being the Israelites.
The problem is that the NIV interpreted Romans 11: 11 instead of translating it word for word as does the King James Version, followed mostly by the other recent translations shown above. The NIV says "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. " "Beyond recovery" is not in the Greek. The next sentence in the Greek says "μη γενοιτο,"
or "May it not be." This statement of Paul, "May it not be," could be significant in understanding what he is saying here. "May it not be" is a little different from "Not at all" in the NIV.
Could it be that the NIV is trying to push Romans 11: 11 toward a dispensationalist view, that "All Israel shall be saved," meaning all those who appear to be broken off because of unbelief are really to be saved sometime?
Bernard Pyron
On a Christian forum a guy said: "It's the faithful remnant that God is after, the remnant that will truly be saved. The fallen ones are not. And yet what is the question Paul asks and answers in Romans 11:11? "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!"Why is this verse always missed? Paul has distinguished between remnant Israel and fallen Israel, faithful Israel and unfaithful Israel, and yet here Paul states that fallen Israel has not fallen beyond recovery, that all Israel will be saved (v. 26). If he were speaking only of faithful remnant Israel being saved, why then does he even ask the question of fallen Israel? Certainly remnant Israel is not the subject of his question."
Romans 11: 11: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Romans 11: 19-21: "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee."
On the surface in Romans 11: 11 Paul would appear to contradict himself, because he says in the first sentence, "Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid." But then in the second sentence he says "but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles..." He asked if they have stumbled that they should fall and seems to say no. But in the next sentence he says through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles. In one place he says they didn't fall and in another place he says they did fall. There is more going on here than what appears on the surface.
II Peter 3: 15-16 warns us about not understanding Paul: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
One scripture like Romans 11: 11, which is not immediately clear in its surface wording, cannot be used to support a man-made theology. Romans 11: 11 has to be interpreted by other scriptures. Look above at what he says in Romans 11: 19-21. Who is 'they" who were broken off?
If Paul is saying that the Israelites who rejected Christ were broken off in verses 11: 19-20, is he saying in verses 11: 11 and 11: 26 that those broken off will some day be brought back in?
There are other verses in the New Testament which are also relevant here. Matthew 8: 11-12: "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
And John 1: 11: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not."
And even the parable of the vine in John 15: 5-6 is relevant because Christ pruned down physical Israel, as a tree is pruned so that it produces more fruit. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." And in Matthew 3: 10 John the Baptist says "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
In the parable of the vine of John 15: 5-6 the time when physical Israel is pruned down to a small remnant is not indicated. Why would not this pruning down occur in part after the Cross and after the Day of Pentecost, as well as before the Cross? And Matthew 8: 11-12 indicates those pruned away are not brought back in.
The theology which honors "all Israel" is a more radical departure from New Testament doctrine than many would like to believe.
I noticed that the guy on the forum whose comment I quoted above is using the New International Version for Romans 11: 11. Lets see what the problem might be with this verse in the NIV.
New Revised Standard: "So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous."
American Standard Version: "I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy."
New American Standard Version: "I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous."
King James Version: "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."
New International Version: "Again I ask; Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. Rather, because of their transgression, salvation is come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
The NIV claims to have used the Nestle-Aland Greek text, which is based on Tischendorf, and Westcott-Hort, which, in turn are based on the Alexandarian type manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Greek texts.
Lets see if there is any difference in the Greek text between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort for Romans 11: 11:
Textus Receptus Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτους
Westcott-Hort Romans 11: 11: λεγω ουν μη επταισαν ινα πεσωσιν μη γενοιτο αλλα τω αυτων παραπτωματι η σωτηρια τοις εθνεσιν εις το παραζηλωσαι αυτου
There is no substantial difference in these two Greek texts. The Textus Receptus ends with "autous" and the Westcott-Hort has "autou," for "them, " being the Israelites.
The problem is that the NIV interpreted Romans 11: 11 instead of translating it word for word as does the King James Version, followed mostly by the other recent translations shown above. The NIV says "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all. " "Beyond recovery" is not in the Greek. The next sentence in the Greek says "μη γενοιτο,"
or "May it not be." This statement of Paul, "May it not be," could be significant in understanding what he is saying here. "May it not be" is a little different from "Not at all" in the NIV.
Could it be that the NIV is trying to push Romans 11: 11 toward a dispensationalist view, that "All Israel shall be saved," meaning all those who appear to be broken off because of unbelief are really to be saved sometime?