|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | Preservation or Restoration #8 of 9 | | Date: | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:02:24 GMT |
|
|
 | This is a continuing post from Floyd Nolens Book- Which Version is the bible
The Greek Stronghold (Continued from #7)
This is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, found in Revelation chapter 2; a
doctrine which Jesus Christ says He hates. The term "Nicolaitan" was
originally applied to a group of people who plagued the first century church
by its pretensions to having divine authority. Although some have speculated
that it could have referred to a group named after the early deacon, Nicolas
of Antioch (Acts 6:5), there exists no reliable record of such a cult. The
name itself comes from the Greek words "Nikao" ("to conquer" or "overcome")
and "laos" ("people", especially in context here of the laity, the laymen).
Thus, we have a clergy priest class taking authority over and dominating the
people, the laymen.
The Roman Catholic Church in particular has exercised such a practice for
years. One of the means by which Rome has accomplished this unbiblical
dominion has been that of continuing to use the Latin language - a language
which laymen no longer understand - during the conducting of the various
ceremonies, especially mass.
Today most Protestant Churches and their seminaries are guilty of the same
sin and, again, the means is that of language. When the laity attend church
and/or Bible studies, they hear preachers and teachers say "The ORIGINAL
Greek says" or "Your Bible may say thus and so, but the ORIGINAL Greek says
something different." As mentioned previously, this is occurring at the
seminary where the professor affirms "You just don't know the language."
Gradually something happens in the heart and mind of the student. He wonders
"how do I know that I am reading that which the LORD actually inspired and
gave through the prophets, apostles and other men of God? After all, most of
the preachers, teachers and the commentaries are saying 'but the original
Greek says'."
Some seeking to circumvent the problem may reply - "Well, the final
authority is Jesus, only Jesus." The problem with such a statement is that
Jesus has not physically shown up at anyone's home for nearly two thousand
years and audibly said what He meant (Mat.24:23-27). It sounds very
spiritual to say that Jesus is the final authority. After all, He is - and
thus the statement is "true truth". But what many people mean by such an
affirmation is that since no one alive today has spoken to the Lord Jesus
physically and heard Him reply audibly, if the Bible is not the Word of
God - then there is no final authority on the earth. Again, the real issue
at stake is that of final authority.
And so, again, we say, would God inspire a text and then allow it to become
lost? Would He not preserve it as He promised so many times? And if He
preserved it would He not keep it in the hands of His followers for their
use and instruction? Would He only preserve it within jars in caves and the
like or in the obscure inner recesses of the vast library of a harlot
church, having been lost there for centuries? Are we to understand His
promises to preserve the Word as being fulfilled in such a context - really?
Today most seminary instructors ridicule or play down the King James
translation to the student at the onset by statements such as "The original
Greek says this or that. The King James is really not so bad but of course
we have learned a lot since it was written", etc. Amazingly, we have been
blinded in believing that we know more about Greek today than people did
four hundred years ago. But is that a reasonable position? Does not all
logic, common sense and experience tell us the farther one goes from the
original source, that less will be certain?
So after the student's confidence in the King James Bible has been totally
diminished, he is informed that the original Bible was given in Hebrew and
Greek and that the original was inspired. The learner is then reminded that
all he has is a translation and as such, it is not inspired. After a little
more time in the class during which the teacher continues harping on the
originals, suddenly the student is informed "There are no originals! We
don't have an original. We don't have a single first century document of the
Bible." This is devastating to the faith of the young inexperienced would-be
man of God. He has been told that the King James isn't the faithful Word of
God; that the originals were the only true, accurate, authentic Word; and
then informed that there are no original manuscripts of either the Old or
the New Testament.
This is soon accentuated by introducing the student to the "variant
readings" between the existing Greek MSS (we shall discuss this subject
later). How can the young pastor now face his congregation and say,
"Almighty God says", or "thus saith the Lord". His faith in God's Word has
been demasculated by such wicked faculties. The man of God who cannot quote
Scripture with an assured "thus saith the Lord" is but a shorn Samson, not
yet aware that the Philistines have already had their way with him. Young
men with hearts on fire for God walk into the classroom and a Greek scholar
belittles the Word of God and destroys their faith in the Bible. These same
professors then incredulously tell us "Despite all the changes we have made
in translation recently, not one single basic doctrine has been altered in
any way."
But they have! By their tactics, they have altered two of the most important
doctrines of all. They have altered the crucial doctrine of "preservation"
to that of "restoration" - and most text critics do not believe that such
restoration is even any longer possible. Moreover the fall out from this
places another of the most basic doctrines under attack, the doctrine of the
divine inspiration of the text. Consequently, in so doing, they have
destroyed the faith of many such that they no longer are certain that they
have God's Word in their hands. The teacher has perpetuated that which
happened to him years before when he was the student. The evil cycle is now
complete. We have turned full circle to a different pope.
Again, we are being asked to believe in the inspiration of Scripture without
believing in the preservation of the sacred Writ. We are being taught at
nearly all the conservative fundamental seminaries that God gave an inspired
text but could not (or did not) quite protect or preserve it. As a result,
part was lost somewhere along the way and text critics are supposedly
engaged in the arduous process of restoring to the world the original
readings. Whereas that which follows may at times seem somewhat complicated,
the only question the inquiring reader need ask himself is: "Is it
reasonable that God gave man His pure infallible Word and then allowed it to
become so corrupted over time that He (we) was left to call and rely upon
unregenerate men to restore it?" One can but wonder how a believing
Christian scholar, pastor, or layman could allow himself to become so
deceived as to fall into the snare of considering only the "originals" to be
trustworthy. Most assuredly, their faith did not begin there. God "lost"
portions of His Word? Was not that rather awkward of Him?
God bless,
Steve Goltra
|
|
|
