I would like the give a speacial thanks to Ken Silva, Stan, and all who have supported In the Hedge over the past couple of years. When I left the seeker-sensitive church, I was a mess to say the least. I started this blog as a way to expose Perry Noble. It grew to more than just dealing with selfish hirelings like Noble, to many other directions. I am truly humbled by the number of visits I receive each day; I thank each and every one of you for your support.

The time has come for me to step away from blogging for a few reasons. I do not have time to put my best effort into blogging at the moment. I know many of you have noticed how my personal writtings have slowed down a lot over the past several months.  I have other pressing issues that I want to pursue further which will hinder my ability to research and write blogs dealing with the subjects that I want to discuss. Our coummunities are in dire need of direction and I want to focus on my immediate surroundings instead of general blogging. Our society is taking a downward spirit into a nanny state in every aspect of our culture.

False teachers like Perry Noble and his business called $$$$$New$pring Church$$$$$ will continue to prosper because too many Christians are either too lazy to study the Word or they do not care. What we must do is reach out to our local surroundings and inform people about the problems we face today. For me, this goes far beyond just dealing with the church, because I see the decay of our society from a social perspective. If we do not get ahold of the downward spiral into Marxism, then it will not matter if we teach the true Gospel or the seeker-sensitive imatation because we all will be in the same frying pan under an oppressive government.

Again, I thank each of you with all my heart for the bonds that have been made because of this blog. I will keep the comment section open with moderation to prevent spam and drive by seeker-sensitive/foaming at the mouth KJV only rage bots. In the future, I may start blogging In the Hedge again, but right now I just do not have the will or the time to continue. I can still be reached via e-mail but it may take a while for me to respond. This was not an easy decision to make and it was one that I have pondered for months. It’s just time for me to move on and see what the future holds.

In Christ,

David J

Psalm 119:125

I am your servant; give me discernment that I may understand your statutes.

Proverbs 15:14

The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Philippians 1:9-11

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

I know this will cause a fire storm within some Christians because it goes against what they have been taught about the foundation of the United States of America. I’ve discussed this subject many times with fellow Christians over the years only to run into brick walls built around a foundation of misconceptions and wishful thinking. The idea our country was founded upon Christianity seems to have become a doctrine of the faith within some sects of Christianity. I hear many people ranging from local preachers to talk radio host pushing the idea that we must get the country back to it’s Christian roots. The truth is our Founding Fathers never intended our country to be ran by a religious theocracy and they setup safe guards to prevent this type of government. If the Founding Fathers intent was to base our country upon Christianity, then they did a pitiful job because no where is Jesus Christ or Christianity mentioned in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

If we study history, then we see all the problems associated with a theocracy. A theocracy is oppressive and as savage as any leftist dictatorship can be. All we need to do is look at Europe in the Middle Ages, Islam, and the Salem witch trails to see the problem with mixing religion with government.

The Founding Fathers fled an oppressive theocracy when they left Europe. It’s easy to see why they took every step possible to prevent this type of abuse in the United States. The concept of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press is a safe guard against a religious theocracy or any form of oppressive government. Freedom and theocracy can never mix; it’s like saying that people are free while being under a Marxist regime. The one thing that a theocracy and Marxism have in common is how they enforce their rules which is by force backed up with a gun.

The Treaty of Tripoli is a very clear example of the the Founding Fathers view on Christianity and our government:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”(source)

The following is a very good post from Jim Walker concerning the myth that our country was founded on Christianity. I do not agree with everything that Mr. Walker promotes or believes, but I do agree with him 100% on this issue.

The Government of the United States is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

Mr. Walker makes his points and back them up with facts. As Christians, we should not be concerned with using the government to convert people. We should be focused on spreading our beliefs peacefully and seeking to convert people by peace rather than with the threat of force to obey our rules.

As a pro-life Libertarian, I believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. I reject the notion that we must pass laws based upon religion in order to bring peace to our country. All we need are common sense laws. We all need to learn to respect each others differences as long as those differences do not harm other people. If we feel a need to change something within our community, then buy all means use our freedoms and peacefully try to convert people to Christianity rather than trying to use the government as a means of force feed surfdom!

Theocracy is a terrible oppressive form of government that rules by fear and manipulation. The same Christians wanting to pass laws based on Christianity, are the same people who would whine about Sharia Law. Please explain to me the difference between Sharia Law and laws based upon Christianity from a US Constitutional perspective. Our constitution forbids laws to be made based upon religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If we do, as some say, use Christianity as a foundation for laws to get America back to her roots then we will 1.) Establish a state religion 2.) Forbid the free exercise of religions that do not line up with whatever Christian sect is making the rules 3.) Censor free speech and the press 4.) And citizens will have no avenue to protest their grievances with this new government. If we do as some claim, then America will cease to be America and transform in a bigger version of mid-evil Europe were religious oppression intruded upon mankind’s basic right to be an individual. I know this is very unpopular to talk about from this perspective, but as Christians we wait on Christ to establish His perfect kingdom on earth; if we choose to set about doing this work for God, all we will do is create a bigger mess. Our Founding Fathers were wise to establish a system were liberty was allowed to flourish and at the same time rear it’s ugly head.

I had rather live under our government that strictly adheres the constitution than one that “thumps” a Bible as they use the threat of force to cram their beliefs down everyone’s throat who dares to disagree. At least under our rights given to use by our Founding Fathers, I will have the freedom to speak, to think, to disagree publicly, and the freedom to spread my beliefs without the fear of being arrested, harassed, or murdered. We cannot allow the actions of liberty hating leftist (or conservative liberty hating bible thumpers blaming “freedom” for all our sin ills) to skew our views on liberty.

Those who hate Christianity have a right to speak out, but they do not have a right to pass laws in order to silence those who choose to be Christian; likewise Christians do not have the right to pass laws to silence those whom they deem as anti-Christian. Two wrongs do not make a right. The beauty of America is that we all have the ability and right to have these debates and discussions without fearing punishment.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

The bottom line is if Christians want to change the direction of our country then they need to start by spreading the Gospel. They need to disciple new converts and teach their congregations how to live a Christian life. This is far more effective than passing things like Blue Laws etc. and trying to strong arm society to accept our beliefs. In my opinion, Christians who used the government to make laws based on their “morals” or because they were “offended“, taught many atheist how to use government to push forth their agenda. All sides need to step back and appreciate our freedoms, respect each other’s differences, and grow some thicker skin! We all share this country together so lets live together in peace while accepting each other’s differences!

I think it’s important to know how King James Only defenders “defend” their doctrine of KJV only. The purified seven times defense is a myth pushed forth by many KJV only defenders.  The end result of this “7 X” myth is a faulty mixture of Psalm 12, the history of the English Bible, and circular reasoning to create facts that simply do not exist! The following article is a good example of mixing reality with fiction in order to defend what cannot be defended. -David J

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God “authorized.”

Because the Authorized Version is the “last” English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times.” The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible — it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the “Morning Star of the Reformation” for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe’s New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: “I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest.” The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: “Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare.”

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he “perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text.” The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

Although Tyndale’s English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree “that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction.” Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale’s Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther’s Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale’s second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale’s New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it “better than any other translation heretofore made.” And so it happened that Tyndale’s translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King’s permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were “set forth with the King’s most gracious license,” the Great Bible was the first “authorized” Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide “one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it.” The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell’s injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in “some convenient place within the said church.”

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew’s Bible. It appeared under the title of: “The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner.” He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament — the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops’ Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen’s recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that “all the English versions are most corrupt.” The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 “for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church.” Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, “moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original.”

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops’, Douay-Rheims, and King James — ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times.” The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible — just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner’s Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew’s Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible — three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

Or have they?

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all — even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times,” is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch.” The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: “We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth’s of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.” Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators’ “The Epistle Dedicatory” or their “The Translators to the Reader,” but in the “Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible.” These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: “1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” “14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthews, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.”

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being “purified seven times” are Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God “authorized,” of which the King James Authorized Version is God’s last one — purified seven times.

I am using this information as defined under the Fair Use section of US copyright law as described under: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times By Dr. Laurence M. Vance is copyrighted by Vance Publications P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524, USA. Phone: (850) 474-1626. 

Over the years, I have ran into all sorts of KJVO defense tools. Many times when challenged, KJVOist will point those of us who disagree with King James Onlyism to The Answer Book by Sam Gipp. This book is another example of how KJVO defenders like Gipp will say anything in order to defend their KJV only doctrine.

As you read Aren’t modern English translations easier to understand? keep the following passage in mind…

Ruth 4(KJV)

1Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.

The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp

Aren’t modern English translations easier to understand?

QUESTION #42:

Aren’t modern English translations easier to understand?

ANSWER:

No. Some may seem easier to read, but none are easier to understand.


EXPLANATION:

One of the primary advertising gimmicks used to sell modern English translations is that they will be easier to understand for the potential customers. The customer, having been assured that he/she cannot possibly understand the “old archaic” King James gratefully purchases the modern English Bible and unknowingly condemns themself to a life of biblical ignorance. Modern English translations may be easier to read but they are not easier to understand.

Let’s look at the equation in simple terms. If the “archaic” language and the “thee’s” and “thou’s” of the King James Bible really do hamper the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in communicating His message to the Christians, then several things should be true of one or all of the raft of modern English translations on the Bible market today.

1. If modern English translations, such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, and Today’s English Version were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit’s message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater spiritual victories in the lives of God’s people on an individual basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.

In fact it is only too evident to any objective observer that today’s Christians are more worldly and less dedicated to Jesus Christ than their nineteenth or even early twentieth century counterparts who were raised on and read the King James Bible. Surely a Bible that was “easier to understand” would have dramatically increased successes in battling sin, worldliness and carnality, but this JUST HAS NOT HAPPENED.

2. Secondly, if the modern English translations were really easier to understand then I believe God would show a little more gratitude for them by using at least one to spark a major revival in this nation.

It is elementary to see that if the “old archaic” King James Bible has been hampering the desired work of the Holy Spirit, then God should be eager to bless the use of any translation that would be easier for His people to understand.

Again, it is all too obvious that no mass spiritual awakening of any kind has been initiated by any one of today’s modern translations. Today’s modern translations haven’t been able to spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone expected to close a bar.

In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations, beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen:

1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school

2. Abortion on demand legalized

3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an “alternate life style”

4, In home pornography via TV and VCR

5. Child kidnapping and pornography running rampant

6. Dope has become an epidemic

7. Satanisrn is on the rise

If this is considered a “revival” then let’s turn back to the King James to STOP it.

In fact, the ONLY scale used to claim success for a new translation is how well it sells. This depraved Madison Avenue sales system should set alarms ringing in the Christian. Instead, deluded by television, they dutifully nod and remark that, “It must be good, everybody’s buying one.”

Is there any “good” coming from modern translations? Surely. The publishing companies are making millions.

Today American Christians are spiritually anemic. They turn instead to their favorite “Bible psychologist” for help rather than Scripture. America as a whole is as morally decayed as Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ezekiel 16:49).

Where is the spiritual help and hope that an “easier to understand” translation should bring’?

Instead, perhaps we are in this desperate condition because of those very translations.

I am using this information as defined under the Fair Use section of US copyright law. The article and images are © 2012 Dr. Sam Gipp | 3166 Wildwood Circle | Massillon, OH 44646 | 330-685-2578

Built By Atlas Design & Technology

See also:

Gail, Gipp and Grady: The trio defending Ruckman

This is one of the best examples of how KJVOist use circular reasoning and logical fallacy to defend King James Onlyism. I find it interesting how the guy in this video takes numbers and grammar to some how prove the NIV is Satanic.