FINER POINT OF ''SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM'' 31 CHAPTER FOUR The Finer Points Of "Scholarship Onlyism" You may, or may not, have noticed in the last chapter under "point 6,'' the matters of translating (in regards to prepositions) being brought up. This has to do with the AV translators sup- posedly "blowing it" when they translated "en'' as ''by,'' ''with," "into," etc.; or when they translated ''eis" as "into,'' "unto,'' "with a view to,'' ''in view of," etc. ''Kata," for ex- arnple, can come out as "down," ''down upon," "throughout," "in the quarter of," "among," "in the presence of," "by,'' "concerning," and "against. " "Peri " can be "about, " "con- cerning," "around," "conditions," "circumstances," "re- specting,'' or "touching," and "pros" can refer to "by," "at," "at the side of," "toward, " ''unto, " "close upon, " "with, " ''at," "among," "in order to," "in respect to,'' "with reference to," "in conformity with," or "in comparison with,'' etc. When you hear some blabber-mouth Alexandrian talking about how a certain preposition "SHOULD have been translated, " or how much "better it was translated" in an NIV or NASV than the King James, you must be aware of what we tell our students that the Alexandrians never tell any student. You see, the authority for correcting the AV here IS Dr. A T. Robertson of Louisville, who knew about as much about the Bible as Tammy Bakker, or Oral Roberts. Robertson in- sists that no one can properly translate a Greek preposition unless he knows "the history of both case and preposition, and notes the precise context and MEANING of the words so connected, (p. 249). He then hastens to say that ''This does NOT mean that a given preposition means a half dozen or more different things as the average lexicon may say. " Instead, Robertson tells us that if you put each preposition through the process of an 32 HOW TO TEACH "THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT historical study of the CASE it was used with, you can get it right. The catch here-which naturally Robertson REFUSES to talk about-is that you break down the Genitive case into an Ablative case, so you can shift to either to prove a preposi- tion means what you want it to mean,and you break the Dative case into Locative and Instrumental cases so you can alter the AV translation by claiming they didn't know the proper ''CASE.'' Anyone could distinguish the case endings between the Genitive and the Dative, but the endings of the Ablative are exactly like the Genitive, and the endings in the Locative and Instrumental are exactly like the Dative. They sure know when to keep their mouths shut, don't they? Now having said this, Robertson tries to apply it, but when he does, his false thesis goes to pieces. "There is NO scien- tific division of prepositions according to THE CASES in which they are used" (p. 252). "Probably in the instrumental case. . . " (ibid). "Sometimes dia (Aeschyuluso), but dia looks like the instrumental case...'' (op cit. p. 253). "The resultant idea will VARY with the case, the meaning of the words and the con- text." (op cit. p. 254) "Hence, a case like Acts 2:38...can mean either 'ON THE BASIS OF FORGIVENESS OF SINS'...or 'WITH A VIEW TO FORGIVENESS OF SINS'(prep. "eis''). "One will interpret it according to his theology, " (p. 256). A. T. Robertson was a deceived liar. Anyone who took him seriously will come out the same way. He just told you that the meaning of the Greek preposition (''eis") would be determined by the meaning of the words and the context. The context of Acts 2:38 is God answering the prayer of His Son on the cross ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"), and is confirmed by Acts 3:17 and I Corinthians 2:8. The expression "for the forgiveness of sins" * occurs only FOUR times in the New Testament, and not ONE time does it ever have any reference to "with a view to, or to obtain, forgiveness of sins.'' In all four cases it was a reference to sins that had been forgiven, and in all four cases the expression was explained by Exodus 34:7 and Hebrews 9:15, 10:4. FINER POINT OF "SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" The English text of 161 I determined how the Greek preposi- tion (''eis'') was to be interpreted in Acts 2:38, and it allowed no leeway of interpretation at all, no matter what any lexicon said. If the Greek meant ''in order to obtain forgiveness of sins'' (I said ''IF''), then the Greek was WRONG, and the English was correct It could not mean "either, " as Dr. Robertson said: not in Acts 2:38. Dr. Robertson simply LIED. He referred you to the subjective opinions of your own theological preferences as the FINAL AUTHORITY for interpreting a preposition the Holy Bible had already ''interpreted." Dr. A.T. Robertson would deceive you on purpose. He would lie to you if it were expedient. Ditto Chuck Swindoll, James Price, James Combs, Bob Jones III, Fred Afman, Dell, Sherman, Walker, Hudson, Kutilek, Robert Sumner, Hymers, Melton, Farstad, Waite, Hodges, and ANYONE LIKE THEM. Now, let us go from one apostate hell hole to another. In- stead of studying Greek at BJU, under the Alexandrian Cult, using the Jesuit Dark Age text of Rome, let us go to Wheaton, or Moody, to study Greek where the Alexandrian Cult is also using the Dark Age Jesuit text of Rome, but his time-"va- riety is the spice of life!"-let us study Greek under a deceived lair who thinks the NIV is an improvement on the NASV. (Prog- ress . Darwin . ) "The expression * is a fairly cornrnon Pauline locution" (Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 92). This is translated by the ''King's men" as "God forbid" (Rom. 3:4, I Cor. 6:15). On the grounds that the word "God" is not found in any Greek text-exactly as it is not found in any Greek text in Acts 7:59-Carson says the NlV rendering translates the expression PERFECTLY (ibid). How does this Jesuit, Dark Age revision translate *? It says, "not at all" the first time (Rom. 3), but ''never" the second time (1 Cor. 6:15). Well, is *, *, or * ("NEVER'') found anywhere, in any Greek text used by the NIV? No, it isn't. They added "never" after saying you couldn't add "God." Did they translate the Optative? * No, they didn't even attempt to. They just ignored it. The NASV attempted it with ''MAY it never be,'' but Carson 34 HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT doesn't like the translating committee that put out the NASV, and he doesn't like BJU (see p. 91); so, presuming himself to be the final authority, he says the NIV catches the expression "PERFECTLY." It does? Well, WHO is it that lets things ''be, or not be?'' WHO is it that can let a thing happen, or prevent it from hap- pening? Are we to assume a converted Orthodox Jewish rab- binical scholar (Phil. 3) wouldn't have THAT in mind when he said ''Let it not be!''? Well, if you were D.A. Carson, or some blockhead on the NIV committee (see The NIV, an In-Depph Study in Apostasy, 1991), ''yes,'' he would have. If you were a Bible-believing Christian, you would know it was a PRAYER, as well as a denial. Paul is asking God to forbid such a thing from ever hap- pening. (This is where the NIV got "NEVER'' from). God is going to forbid it from "being" (happening). But without God as the source for letting some things happen, while stopping other things from "becoming," the expression is not translated at all. It is missing its most essential element: the One who forbids The Greek student, in class, will now be told that we are not waiting for "the hope of righteousness" (Gal. 5:5) because we do not have this righteousness NOW (in Christ). Instead, we are awaiting "THE RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR WHICH WE HOPE" (NIV). Their Greek text says *, which would be literally: "For we by a Spirit out of faith a hope of righteousness are awaiting" (Articles naturally appear before ''Spirit'' and ''hope''). Thus, ''We, by in the Spirit are by faith awaiting the HOPE of righteousness.'' No one is waiting for righteousness to show up, and no one is "hoping" it will show up, for "righteousness" is NOT the object of anything: it is in the Genitive case. The object (Accusative case) was * (''the hope"), as in the KinB James Bible Why did the Greek teacher take the time out in class to teach the Greek ''cases'' for the noun, when he had no inten- tion of translating them according to what he was teaching the student? And if he thought you could turn Genitives and Datives FINER POlNT OF "SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM'' 35 into direct objects, on occasion, why did he not TELL the stu- dent that if the AV translators did such things, they were not in error? Why the double standard? Easy: $$$$$. Carson, pretending to be a scholar-he is about as scholarly as Thulman Wisdom or Stewart Custer-says ''The KlV's place- ment of "by faith" is "potentially misleading." Misleading into what? When you took the NIV reading you were misled into thinking that after your salvation (Rom. 10:9-10) you were still going to have to wait for the righteousness you were sup- posed to have gotten when you got saved. How do you hope (NIV) for the righteousness of Christ, when you already have it (Rom. 3:22; 4:3)? "The hope (the object) of righteousness," on the other hand, is the culmination of our salvation, and is so identified and defined in Titus 2:13, 1 John 3:1-3, and Romans 8:20,24. (Note: this is the same place where "Gary Poo''-King James Onlyism vs. Scholarship Onlyism-blew it). Our "hope of righteousness" (AV) is Jesus Christ, who gave us His righteousness. Look at the context (Gal. 5:4). The "hope of righteousness" is a perfect, sinless, new body, soul, and spirit when "the hope of righteousness" shows up. We already have His righteousness. Our HOPE is the completion of our salvation. Again, the AV is supposed to have ''missed the point of the Greek text" in 3 John 2, for it should have apostatized with the NIV to produce the degenerate "Dear friends, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that ALL MAY GO WELL WITH YOU. ( * ) 3John 2). Here a literal rendering would have produced "Beloved, concerning all things, I am wishing thee to prosper and be in health, even as it prospers, thy (the) soul . " The AV took ''peri" * to mean "above all," instead of "concerning'' (see notes on prepositions above). This was because ''peri," when attached to other stems, means "over and above,'' "extraordinary,'' "much,'' ''abundantly,'' "more abundantly,'' "exceedingly,'' "to be over and above," hence "I wish above all things." Down in the Greek class, where the Greek teacher is busy 36 HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT destroying the ministerial candidate with ''THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT'' (to quote John R. Rice), he is told that the NIV corrects this "gaff'' in a King James Bible (see Carson. op cit. p. 94) by altering "*" to an Accusative used in indirect discourse: "I wish THAT all things.. .etc.'' In doing this, the NlV eradicated "things"-which is a plural- whereas "all'' is a singular-ignoring the first wish ("thee to prosper") because it was in the Accusative case (not the Genitive plural as "*"), and then paraphrased the rest of the verse ''even as your soul is getting along well." The verb (*) is not a reference to anyone just "getting along well." It is reference to someone PROSPERING, or suc- ceeding in accomplishing something. The NIV is a ''better rendering" than your King James Bible ? Another shaft that you will get at Moody, Fuller, Wheaton, etc., on the NIV, is that when they attacked the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ in John 3:16, by adopting the liberal version of the Modernists in the NCC .(RSV and NRSV), they did not really deny it, because the Virgin Birth (and any other fundamen- tal; this is a famous gimmick) doesn't "stand or fall on ONE verse.'' This is an old tool, well worn with Satanic use. It is ONE word that determines the meaning of Mark 16:16 ("not") and Isaiah 7:14. It is one word that determines the meaning of John 18:36 ("now"). Here, in John 3:16, the compound Greek word * has only been HALF translated; the * part of the compound word has been left untranslated (as in the RSV and NRSV). D.A. Carson's alibi for this attack on the Deity of Christ is that Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and othe places-where no reference is being made to the Birth of Jesus Christ, or His begatting (see Ps. 2:7)-do not need to translate the second half of the adjective. As a clincher, Carson says that Hebrews 1 1:17 would have been translated wrongly if * had been fully translated. Didn't Abraham have other sons besid Isaac? Got it'? Logical, isn't it? Is anything missing? (Don' forget that the main characteristic of the Alexandrian family of Greek manuscripts is their tendency to OMIT!) Would an Alexandrian like Carson, Eugene Carson Blake. FINER POINT OF "SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" 37 Dean L. Weigle, or Norman Vincent Peale (RSV, NRSV, and NCC) fail to give you some vital information? You bet your booties they would. We tell OUR students: 1) Isaac was Abraham's ''ONLY BEGOTTEN," in the sense that he was a type of Jesus Christ (see Gal. 3: 16), and the only son begotten by promise and com- mand (Gen. 17:21, Gal. 4:28). 2) Abraham's other sons were not begotten from Sarah, exactly as every begotten son of God after Christ (see Rom. 8:14, 19; Heb. 12:7; 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 21:7, etc.) is begotten by the Holy Spirit, not from Mary. 3) What is the motive of a man who omits ''begotten" in John 3:16, when Psalm 2:7 and Hebrews 1:6 showed him how ''the original Greek text'' should have been translated? 4) With the Author of John's Gospel (1 John 5:1,18) telling the NIV how to translate ''*', how did they mistranslate it every time it showed up (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18, and 1 John 4:9)? If the NIV blew it five times in five verses, what was all the talk about "no major doctrine stands or falls on ONE verse?'' The NIV sacked five of them. This is where all apostasy begins; in a Greek class under a Greek teacher. What does BBC (Springfield) turn out, after studying the "original Greek?'' You get one guess. Here is J. H. Melton, of Milton, Florida, who was a professor at BBC for a number of years. Watch the clone "ape" the party line; "I certainly reserve the right to IMPROVE and correct the King James translation. . .I had seventeen courses in Greek and eight courses in Hebrew. I taught both Greek and Hebrew in college." SO DID I. How did we arrive at different conclusions and different destinations unless our GOALS and MOTIVES were different? "If a boy with my background could learn to use the languages in which the scriptures were verbally inspired, anyone else could, if he desired to know what the Holy Spirit said, instead of what is translated'' (cf. with Sturtz on p. 84). Do you know what Melton actually MEANT to say in "the original?'' He meant to say, "I am smart enough to correct the greatest Book the world ever saw, and my improvements are authoritative because my mind was shredded sitting at the feet 38 HOW TO TEACH ú-THE ORIGINAL- GREEK TEXT of destructive Bible critics who coutdn't lead a horse to water, let alone a soul to Christ. After four years of brainwashing that would disintegrate a granite boulder, I found out what the Holy Spirit REALLY said that Dwight Moody, J. Frank Norris, Billy Sunday, Sam Jones, Charles G. Finney, General William Booth, and Mordecai Ham MISSED because none of them could teach Greek and Hebrew like ME. '' Do you know how many young ministers this ONE Greek teacher probably destroyed in four years? A conservative estimate would be one hundred. There are fifty Greek teachers in America today just like him. That means that a minimum of 1,250 young men are destroyed, permanently, every year in Conservative colleges and seminaries. J. Melton has no evangelistic ministry, no pastoral ministry, no missionary outreach, no soul winning tracts printed, no jail ministry, and he doesn't have in his possession one letter, after years of teaching, from one young man thanking him for restoring his faith in the Holy Bible. I get better than one letter a month and have for more than thirty years. Our GOALS and MOTIVES for learning and teaching Greek must have been different. Here, at PBI, the Greek student is always given informa- tion unavailable to a student in Dallas Theological Seminary, Louisville Theological Seminary, or Grace Theological Sem- inary. The reason why is simple. Our goals are different. We are interested in turning out Bible-believing, street-preaching, soul-winning evangelists, pastors, and missionaries who know WHAT they believe, WHY they believe it, and move with, and in the direction of, the Holy Spirit. The Alexandrian organiza tions are interested in turning out smooth, slick, brilliant, Bi- ble critics who will promote scholarship and Christian educa- tion after they leave the institution. In a Greek class at PBI, up will show Edward Hill's manuscript evidence showing thal the "far greatest and oldest uncial manuscripts" are the most corrupt ever found; up pops Dean Burgon's dissertation on Mark 16 (which is still enclosed in double brackets in Nestle's Alex- andrian text). Right in the middle of a class on manuscript evidence, will show up the documented, detailed analysis of FINER POINT OF "SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" 39 Revelation 22:17,21 where Erasmus was supposed to have "added" words from the Latin. ''For the Apocalypse, he (Erasmus) had only one manuscript of the twelfth century bor- rowed from Reuchlin, then lost sight of, but found again in 1861; defective on the last leaf (containing the last six verses) when he retranslated it into POOR GREEK. It was made in great haste, in less than six months, and full of ERRORS" (Philip Schaff, A Companion to The Greek Testament and the English Version, 1883, p. 230-231). Examples of the errors? Not one example given in six verses, containing more than one hundred words. A man would be a bungling fool to listen to Philip Schaff for five minutes when he speaks on manuscript evidence, or textual criticism. He was the head of the ASV com- mittee of 1901. Right smack in the middle of a discussion on the "reliabil- ity'' of the Greek text for the RV and ASV, will appear a list of changes Nestle made in that "eclectic'' text, amounting to 467 reversals back to the Greek text of the King James Bible. After eighty years, Nestle got ''converted" to 467 out of 712 changes, although the head of the Bible Department at BJU said he would defend "EVERY WORD" of the text before the 467 changes were made. Tell me something; where on earth would you go to any school to get that FACTUAL information? They don't give it to you at Grace Theological Seminary. We will show the student where no modern ''updated" translation translated Matthew 16:19 correctly, or Matthew 28:1 correctly. We show the student place aRer place, after place, in the NASV and NIV, where no Greek text was underlying the translation, and no translator followed his own Greek text at all. Again, we will show the student how ALL "modern up- dated translations" add articles where there are none (1 Cor. 2:16 for example) and violate their own laws of grammar and syntax when attacking the AV (for example: Matt. 2:1, 4, 13, 17; 3:6, 7, 8; 6:4, 8, 19, 28). What does the student get at, say, San Francisco Theological Seminar,v? Let Dr. Kenneth Brown speak for all of the apostate Nicolaitans there: 40 HOW TO TEACH "THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT Party Line: I ) Acts 9:5,6 is Erasmus' conjecture an shouldn't be in the Bible. Party Line: 2) Although Westcott and Hort did not hold to a Biblical view of inspiration, you should esteem their ''Biblical scholarship'' of the highest sort. Party Line: 3) "In this verse (John 1:18) the Textus Recep- tus has depreciated the Deity of the Incarnate One, even Jesus Christ. It would be entirely valid for the textual critic to change the Textus Receptus defenders with a deliberate omission the name "God'' when applied to Christ in John 1:18 and thus deny the Deity of Christ in this passage.'' Brown is referring to the Jehovah Witness' New World Translation of John l :18 which IS the reading of the NASV TWO GODS, one begotten and the other unbegotten. Kenneth Brown is a ''JW." Party Line: 4) ''There are difficulties in its terminology (AV) and there are problems in the Greek text from which it is translated. '' You are then led to believe that it was the AV that used the Duoay Rheims text of the Jesuits, although that Greek was the ALEXANDRIAN TEXT OF THE RV, ASV NASV, NIV, and NRSV. Party Line: 5) ' 'The , KJV ought to be USED because of its elegance, dignity, familiarity, and general trustworthiness This should not eliminate the value of other translations [the Roman Catholic Jesuit texts: RV, ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, etc.] which may help to clarify the meaning of 'GOD'S WORD.' The KJV is not inerrant; no translation is inerrant.'' Then he tells us that not only are the supporters of the Jesuit Rheims Vatican text [Westcott and Hort, etc.] NOT "radical, apostate, nor heretical," but that the support and promotion of these Roman Catholic Dark Age texts "better represents the center of Biblical Scholarship and orthodox Christianity.'' Whereupon, we give the student the exact readings from Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Papyrus 66 and 75, that show the heretical and unorthodox nature of the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts. The student is supposed to be studying ''Greek,'' right? Then shouldn't he know the Greek evidence, in the Greek text corruptions, taught at San Francisco FINER POINT OF ''SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" 41 Theological Seminary? Of course he should. We teach them. At San Francisco (ditto Dallas, Grace, Lousiville, New Orleans, Fuller, Denver, etc.), the student is taught that it is "SLANDER" to give the FACTS regarding the beliefs of Westcott and Hort. The student is then told that Erasmus "was no model of the Christian faith. He was a Roman priest who never intended to leave the Roman Church. In fact, he dedicated his first edition to Pope Leo X." At this point, we suddenly overthrow all the scholarship of San Francisco Theological Seminary (and all of their peers, mentors, associates, students, and teachers) by referring the Greek student to the "Fourth Rule'' of the Index, established at the Council of Trent-just after Erasmus' text began to go into other languages (1546). If you want to know how really ''pro-Catholic'' this "priest" was, watch the highest official council in the history of Romanism (establishing the Triden- tine Confession-which is still binding today on ALL priests) state that NO ROMAN CATHOLIC CAN READ ANY TRANSLATlON MADE FROM ERASMUS' GREEK TEXT. He does this on danger of excommunication. It is a mortal sin to READ the King James Bible, Martin Luther's Bible, or ANY translation that comes from the Textus Receptus. An official Catholic Bible (Jesuit Rheims, Duoay Rheims, Challoner, Challoner Rheims, Jerusalem [and New Jerusalem], American [and New American], Catholic Bibles are all from the NESTLES-HORT-ALEXANDRIAN-EGYPTIAN text that Erasmus abandoned. It is the text for the NIV and NASV. All we do is give the student INFORMATION that he can- not get in the institutions of "higher learning, " which profess to believe in "verbal, plenary, inspired, original autographs.'' San Francisco Theological Seminary (and the rest) is deficient in "scholarship" if the truth were known. You see, the product of Erasmus and the AV translators is ANTI-CATHOLIC, while the product of Westcott, Nestle, Bob Jones III, Hort, Brown, Price, Martin, Sumner, Machen, Warfield, Green, Schaff, and Wuest is PRO-CATHOLIC. What Satan tried to do in the Greek class was derail the student and 42 HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT get his eyes off of thefruits of the product, and back on the personal ''credentials" and ''lifestyles'' of those who produced it: SECULAR HUMANISM-of a "godly" sort, of course! We call the student's attention to what God DID with the Anglican-Puritan production that had ''baby sprinklers'' on the committee (1611). He produced the largest soul-winning Prot- estant Fundamental schools and churches in the world: Ham- mond, Indiana; Cincinnati, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Pontiac, Michigan; Greenville, South Carolina; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Fort Worth, Texas, etc. The ten largest Baptist churches in the USA (1960-1990) were set up on the "Anglican," baby sprink- ling, Septuagint-believing, Church of England translators in England, while the Baptist fools (who hollered that ''baptidzo" should have been translated as "imrnersion"), have never pro- duced one version of the Bible in any language, from any set of manuscripts in two hundred years, that God ever used to set up a coffee house. Party Line: 6) Dr. Kenneth Brown says that no believer in the Textus Receptus has any place in "evaluating textual prob- lems at all," and the Roman Catholic influence is to be found in the AV, not the RVand ASV. To put over this lie (and it is bigger than Jim Jones' profession of faith) he appeals to the Old Testament-not the "GREEK" text in the New Testament- and then fails to explain how matching verse for verse in the New Testament, produces forty-two cases where the NIV, ASV, NASV, RV, RSV, and NRSV match the Greek text of the Jesuit Rheims Douay of 1582, whereas every edition of a King James Bible from 1611 to 1980 rejects these Greek readings. At PBI, we lay the Jesuit Rheims alongside the AV and then add Weymouth, Goodspeed, Lamsa, Berkley, Philips, the RV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, The Living Bible, and seven- teen more versions, to show that Dr. Kenneth Brown is a bold- faced liar in his attempts to make you think the AV is any friend of the Roman Catholic, New Testament Dark Age text of the Jesuits. We have a student read the standard (AV), and then, more than twenty-five of them read directly from the transla- tions that came from Kenneth Brown's "better and more ac- curate Greek manuscripts." It takes the class five weeks to do FINER POINT OF "SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISIM'' 43 this, but we get it done. We always give any student more in- formation, that is FACTUAL, than he can obtain at Dallas, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, or "Grace'' Theological Seminaries. Dr. Brown-attacking every Bible-believer on the continent-says that some recent defenses of the King James Bible "tend to lead fundamental men into false assumptions [im- agine that, after the remarks he made on Erasmus and the Douay Rheims] and soldiers defending a cause which cannot be justified. '' Proof? the proof they give you in seminary (any Alex- andrian offshoot) is that there are so many doctrinal difficulties and ''textual problems'' that must be solved by Greek scholars and textual critics that it is impossible for a Bible-believer to solve these problems if all he has is a King James Bible (see p. 27). Note: this is the original position given by the Greek teacher, the first day in the classroom (p. 72). It is the eternal- ly repeated LIE that the ''key" to solving doctrinal and textual problems in the Bible lies in an intellectual grasp of Greek gram- mar and syntax. Watcn this demonstrated as the Greek teacher now invents problems, and puts the "difficulties" on the stu- dent, leading him to believe that the only way they can be solved is by getting rid of the King James text. Heeeeer's Johnny! Dr. Kenneth Brown, speaking for BBC, PCS, and BJU. a. "Was the body of the Lord broken (1 Cor. 11:24)?" (Note the Gen. 3:1 overtone.) b. ''Do all men have the peace of God (Luke 2:14)?" (Note the Gen. 3:1 overtone.) c. ''Is baptism essential to salvation (Mark 16:16)?" d. ''Were the writers of the scripture especially holy (2 Pet. l :21)?" e. "Can the believer in the church be free of danger with poison and snakebite (Mark 16:18)?" f. ''Is it possible to believe partially (Acts 8:37)?" That is what every chump is faced with in a theological seminary, run by men who believe in "the plenary, verbal in- spiration of the infallible, original autographs." What you are actually looking at is the helpless whining of a confused child 44 HOW TO TEACH "THE ORIGINAL" GREEK TEXT who knows less about the Holy Bible than the seventeen and eighteen year-olds in my Sunday School class. Do you know how these insuperable "doctrinal difficulties" and "textual prob- lems" were solved at Bob Jones University? 1 know: I went there five school years. They were handled exactly as this apostate (Kenneth Brown) handled them. The first one (a) was handled by removing the words "which is broken for you" from the text. This is what every church in the NCC did, in line with the RSV and NRSV, and this is what Bob Jones Univer- sity did with the NASV. When they found a verse they couldn't understand, they threw it out. This is what the writer of the Alexandrian text did, back in 330 A.D., when he saw the clause. Now get this! You are being told by saved "Doctors,'' in Fundamental seminaries, that the only way to solve a textual problem that comes up in the AV is to destroy the text. That is what Kenneth Brown did. He did it at the dictates of three men who never gave a testimony as to their conversion once in a lifetime: Eberhard Nestle, Anthony Hort, and Brooks Westcott. In order to appear "scholarly" with "high academic stan- dards," Bob Jones Jr. and Bob Jones III followed suit immed- iately, and fell into line as obedient, little passive dummies, without a brain in their head. This is "Christian scholarship" in the twentieth century: brainless, brainwashed clones who abandoned their authority because of a "textual difficulty" that Bible-perverters would solve for them. They ''solved it" by tearing words out of the Bible. Kenneth Brown (along with the first stupid corrector of I Cor. 11:24) thought that "body" had to be bone structure, and since "not a bone of Him was broken" (see Ps. 34:20), he had to get rid of the words of God if they didn't conflrm what he already knew about ''THE WORD OF GOD." The fruitloops in the Fundamental colleges and univer- sities forgot that Christ's SIDE was "broken" when a speal punctured it, and His hands and feet were broken when nails entered them. (You see, when they messed with the Book, God messed with their minds.) The words for "broken," in the Bi- ble, stand for "to be rent, to be crushed, to be bruised, to be lost or destroyed, to be SMITTEN, to be brought down, to be FINER POINT OF ''SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" 45 beaten down, and to be cleft through. '' Dr. Brown, if he knew his Bible, took advantage of the fact that you would not be able to find the references. (The chances are ten to one he didn't know where the references were.) In the same epistle (I Cor.), this poor, deceptive, reprobate-who is trying to get you to give up your Bible and exchange it for his ignorance and the ac- cumulated ignorance of the men who taught him-read that ''HANDS" and "FEET" were part of "the body" (look at 1 Cor. 12:15-25). In Genesis 24:22, you learn that the WRIST is part of the hand. Christ's "body" was broken in FIVE places, without one Greek teacher or one Greek scholar in one hun- dred years being able to find the references (1880-1980). I guess they weren't in the "original Greek text!'' And how do we solve the problem of "on earth, peace, good will toward men" (Luke 2: 14), when all men don't have "THE PEACE OF GOD" (see [b] above). Easy; do what you did to l Corinthians 11:24. Get rid of any word you cannot understand. So said, so done. The NlV, NASV, ASV, RV, RSV, and NRSV all threw out "peace, good will toward men" and inserted the Jesuit Rheims' reading of 1582 ("TO MEN OF good will") which is Origen, converting a Dative into a Genitive (*). This is a Greek topic that deals with Greek grammar. In this case, the CASE of a feminine noun. Why was it not taught at BJU? There was no "PEACE OF GOD" in either text. Kenneth Brown made that up. It is not in any manuscript from any "text type," in ANY family of manuscripts. The term "PEACE OF GOD" was plagiarized from Philippians 4:7 (written affer the resurrection to saved peo- ple in the Body of Christ) and applied, throughout the Dark Ages by the Roman Catholic church, to "cease fires" that periodically took place during wars between barons and kings. Origen-just as stupid as Augustine, Schaff, or Hort-was a Post-Millennialist and he could not understand all hell break- ing loose during and after the birth of Christ, so he altered the angelic announcement to suit his own ignorance (Luke 2:14). Ditto Bob Jones Jr., Bob Jones III, Machen, Warfield, Philip Schaff, and Kenneth Wuest. A fifteen minute study in 1 Peter 1:11, Luke 1,2, Matthew 17:1-8 and Malachi 4, would have 46 HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT enabled any eighth-grade English reader, with an English Bi- ble, to correct the stupid, blasphemous bungling of the Greek teachers and Greek scholars who thought the text contradicted with the facts, and created a ''doctrinal problem.'' No problem was present. The problem was with the Greek teacher. In the third sample (c), the solution was simple; THROW OUT THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK, so you don't have to "reconcile'' the poison-drinking and snake-handling. That is exactly what Bob Jones III and Dr. Kenneth Brown did. They accepted Nestle's text (at BJU this is said to be inspired: see documented evidence in The Last Grenade, as given by the head of their Bible Departrnent), which puts the whole paragraph in double brackets, while stating that "double brackets" indicate that the words so enclosed "FORM NO PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. " Burgon proved they did more than ninety years ago. Now, any student at PBI can handle the last three "doc- trinal and textual problems'' given by Brown, by simply open- ing any edition of the AV, printed anytime since 1611, and straightening the stupid Greek teacher out. (They all get flakey and kinky from too much infidelity. Know what I mean, jelly bean?) No knowledge of Greek, Greek grammar, Greek manuscripts, Greek New Testaments, or Greek scholarship is necessary for solving ONE problem that Brown pretended ex- isted in the King James text. Ditto for ANY problem brought up by ANY Greek scholar, anywhere on earth, in the last 380 years. At PBI, we take up four hundred of these ''problems" (see Problem Texts) and have the students iron them out without reference to ONE Greek or Hebrew word found in any edition of any Hebrew Old Testament, or Greek New Testament. Why can we do this, and the colleges, universities, and seminaries cannot? Simple; they are on another track going another direc- tion ($$$); they are not interested in BIBLE STUDY to find the truth. They are engaged in deifying Christian scholarship as the final authority over the believer: Nicolaitanism. If you are studying Greek, in a Greek classroom, under a Greek teacher, and he fails to inform you of the following FACTS, he knows nothing about the "finer points" of scholar- FINER POINT OF ''SCHOLARSHIP ONLYISM" 47 ship at all, but is simply majoring in DETAILED NON- ESSENTIALS that prove nothing. 1. The original autographs certainly could have contained grammatical errors, for failure to "follow in number or gender'' is a characteristic of Koine Greek (Robertson, p. 399). 2. They could have failed to put proper words together (Zeugma), for all the copies show they did just that (ibid. p. 402). 3. They could have been poorly written as far as gram- mar is concerned, and considering the fact that commercial fIshermen wrote NINE of the New Testament books, you have no reason to think that any of them would meet the highly ex- acting and ''scientific" academic standards of the modern, apostate Fundamentalist who is teaching Greek (ibid). 4. The present participle expresses linear action and can be used with a VERB, to go into the past, present, or future. 5. The joke about the present (linear) active of the verb ''*'' in 1 John 3:9, is nothing but an attempt to make you think that the Greek teachers (and those like them) do not practise sin continually; they just goof up "once in a while.'' Which is the equivalent of saying "If I don't live like you live, I am saved and you aren't." This "linear" present action is drop- ped, over and over again, in other verses where the self- righteousness of the Greek teacher is not an issue. Show the student these places. 6. ''Person'' and "tense" can be changed in direct and indirect statements. 7. Sometimes a statement is interrogative and sometimes it is not, and it is impossible to tell for certain in every case (op cit. p. 361). 8. When ''av" is used in a relative clause, it can make it not only more definite but more indefinite (op cit. p. 324). 9. Two inspired accounts, using the same vocabulary words, can differ in TENSE (Mark 15:10 with Matt. 27:18 for example). 10 . Where an ASV, NASV, or NIV has translated the Greek aorist as a past perfect, they are in ERROR, according to the laws of Greek grammar (op cit. p. 305). 48 HOW TO TEACH ''THE ORIGINAL'' GREEK TEXT l l. The present tense is sometimes PUNCTILIOUS in ac- tion and at other times PURELY LINEAR (op cit. op. 299). 12. Anyone can translate a Greek article, or not translate it, according to his FEELINGS (op cit. p. 282). Emphasis can mean definiteness, but then again, it may not (op cit. p. 283). You can see why this material is not given to the student. It would place a DOUBT in his mind about all of the newer translations that profess to have more knowledge of Greek than the AV translators. Again, it shows that there are definite elements of CHOICE, PREFERENCE, and UNCERTAINTY involved in Greek scholarship, which destroy it from having any claim to being the absolute and final authority about anything. So the material above is OMITTED from the classroom, just like Bob Jones III and Kenneth Brown omitted Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5,6, l John 5:8 and Matthew 23:14 (Nestle, Aland, ASV, Metzger. NASV, RV, Hort, and the popes) from the Holy Bible. ----------------------------- * Greek not recognized by our Scanner -----------------------------