Bible
Genesis 6:11 ‘The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.’
That destruction came in the way of a world-wide flood. After the flood it is said in Genesis 9:12 ‘And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.’
Today a certain group has taken those beautiful rainbow colours to promote a deviant sexual lifestyle. God’s Word says in Romans 1:27 this lifestyle is ‘unseemly’ and as with all sin there will be a day of judgement unless there is personal ‘…repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ‘.
Are all Bibles the same? Does it really make any difference what English Bible you use? The answer to question one is; if they are different they are not the same. The answer to question two is; do you want a Bible with all that God spoke or only what man thinks God spoke?
Dr. Boys wrote ‘Recently, a highly trained and very successful New Jersey pastor announced that he would be preaching the following week in his Gospel of John series but would not deal with John 7:53-8:11–the woman taken in adultery who was forgiven by Christ. The pastor, very close to me, wrote, “we conclude without doubt that John 7:53-8:11 was not 
part of the gospel of John as the Apostle wrote it.” I disagree. There is plenty of doubt.
I believe that pastor, far more qualified than I, was wrong. In a discussion with him or other scholars about biblical manuscripts, I would feel like a mule at the Kentucky Derby. But he is still wrong. In fact, he has to be wrong because God promised to preserve His Word. If He did not, then the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary.
Even though that pastor is my very special first grandchild (and the father of four precious great grandchildren), he is still wrong! Of course, he knows my position on this issue.
He also suggested that pastors need to know the biblical languages in order to provide correct instructions to church members; however, if pastors know those languages, they must use the correct manuscripts and reject the corrupt ones. But his suggestion smacks of Roman Catholics who made it illegal for members to keep a copy of the Bible in their vernacular. The Catholics were to come to the priest for a “correct” interpretation. One reason God gave us the Bible in our language was so we could all become Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” While it is good to know the original languages, it is not a requirement to be an effective pastor.
Some pertinent questions about the Bible’s reliability will be helpful: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God lead and direct men to write a perfect book? Of course, the question demands a positive answer. Question two: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God, after directing men to write a perfect Bible, then keep scribes and translators from error? Again, the answer must be positive. Third question: Why would a sovereign, all-powerful God direct men to produce a perfect Bible to give mankind directions for life and death, and not preserve its perfection?
Pastors who take the modern approach tell us that the Bible is perfect in the “originals” but they seldom tell their audience that no one has seen the “originals” in 2000 years! Why would God give man the “originals” for a few years and leave following generations with an imperfect book? Why give the human race a perfect book then take it from us?
The disputed passage belongs in the Bible; if the Bible is not reliable in John 7 and 8, it is not reliable in John 3 on which personal salvation rests. The Bible is the Words of the 
Living God which will stand forever. If our critics are correct and we do not have an available, accurate, and authoritative Word then where on the face of the earth can we find His will?
Admittedly, the issue is one that good, great, and godly scholars have debated for centuries. One of the earliest objections to the John passage is that Christ seems to be abrogating the Old Testament law requiring death for adultery. Ancient Jews were fearful that Christ’s leniency might give succor to their wives about adultery! Ambrose (died 420) mentioned this in a sermon on David and Bathsheba condemning those who were critical of Christ and those who excised the passage. So the passage was in the Bibles of the early 400s.
Many other Latin Fathers including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo all speak of the passage as being canonical! Augustine (died 430) said some scribes removed the passage because it might seem that Christ was nonchalant about adultery, but Augustine did not advocate removing it from Scripture.
Jerome (died 420), who translated the Latin Vulgate, agreed the passage was legitimate and left it in his translation. Furthermore, he says that the disputed passage was found in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West, late in the 4th century.
However, an overzealous scribe decided it would be best to remove the passage rather than cause concern and possibly encourage loose living with scriptural justification! Such scribes were guilty of taking away from the Word of God which is dangerous.
The disputed passage is included in the 1611 KJV, in the 1587 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishop’s Bible, 1539 Great Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, 1535 Coverdale Bible, 1526 Tyndale Bible, and 1382 Wycliffe Bible. Modern Bibles omit it, footnote it, or bracket it so that readers get the message: it is not reliable. It is fake news, a false story by fallible writers.
All liberals and many Evangelicals teach that the John passage should not be in the Bible, yet the new translations keep putting it in the Bible! The RSV even took it out causing a furor, then replaced it in a later edition to make people happy and to continue selling Bibles! (Is it cynical to suggest that modern translations are all about money?) Modern translators know that removing that famous story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in their Bible market. So they knowingly use a passage that practically all their liberal experts agree should not be in the Bible! If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their research and convictions), they should do the principled thing, but modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. They place the disputed passage in their translations because of cash, cowardice, and convenience.
There are some reputable scholars who agree with my grandson about whether or not the passage belongs in John’s Gospel. Among them are: Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris, Merrill Tenney, D. A. Carson, Ed Blum, Colin Kruse, John Piper, R. C. Lenski, Alfred Edersheim, G. Campbell Morgan, and A. T. Robertson.
Some in the above camp consider the defense of the passage and defense of the KJV a “cancerous sore,” “cultic,” “near cultic,” and “deplorable.” Such “scholars” are, in my opinion, “deplorable.”
Other scholars accept the passage as scriptural: Dean John William Burgon, Zane Hodges, D. A. Waite, David Otis Fuller, Edward F. Hills, A. W. Pink, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James Boice, J. C. Ryle, and John Calvin. So, there are good, highly qualified men on both sides of this issue.
Evidently, there is some doubt. It is not as clear as the critics say.
According to the number of manuscripts that have and don’t the passage, 1,495 Greek manuscripts include the John passage or part of it, and 267 do not include it. Moreover, 
the 267 manuscripts are very early. Most people are impressed with the “earliest” manuscripts but valid, original manuscripts were in the hands of early church fathers who quoted from them from A.D. 150 forward! They quoted, for example, from the last twelve verses of Mark so how could they quote from manuscripts they didn’t hold in their hands? Manuscript date is part of the equation, but it is non-determinative. Manuscripts should be accepted unless proved defective.
Even Aristotle’s dictum supports that approach. He said, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” However, modern translators think they are more trustworthy than the document in question, but I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog!
The fathers of modern Bible translations, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) declared, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” These so-called earliest and most reliable manuscripts were polluted at an early age by the Gnostics whose headquarters were in Alexandria, Egypt–the same city where the Vatican manuscript arose. When the Gnostics didn’t agree with some doctrine or passage, they either subtracted it, or changed it in some way to fit their heretical theology. Hence the production of the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.
Westcott and Hort, like many liberals, gush over the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts but the earliest are not always the most reliable. Both men were unbelieving Anglican priests.
It should also be remembered that the main reason there are so many older manuscripts extant is because they were avoided by the early church leaders because the documents were corrupt. They didn’t get worn out and thus survived to be found and used to confuse Christians today.
Moreover, the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts are identified as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fourth century. Westcott and Hort assumed that both manuscripts were far superior and since those manuscripts did not have the John passage, that was enough for them. However, traditional Greek manuscripts preceded the 4th century manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and were quoted by many church fathers such as Irenaeus who wrote from 150 A.D.! Since very early church fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 for example, then it is false to claim that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the oldest known manuscripts.
But it gets even worse for proponents of modern translations. Dean John Burgon was a famous scholar and Bible defender (died 1888) and he declared that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” Older does not equal reliable.
According to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150! He also declared of the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) from the 4th Century: “From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written.”
Of the Codex Vaticanus (B) from the 4th Century, he declares that a marked feature is the great number of omissions and calculates that whole words or clauses are left out!
Not a good recommendation for the much vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus–from a scholar recognized as an expert by both sides of the controversy.
Most readers do not know of this Bible disagreement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical ranks. Most religious leaders do not believe the KJV is totally reliable while many do. However, I have noticed for many years the tendency of both sides to demonize the other. Those critical of the KJV are often very arrogant and vicious in their opposition, even calling us “cultists.” They quickly slide by the fact that many of our persuasion hold degrees just as reputable as theirs.
And on the other side, some in our group give good ammunition to the other side by making irresponsible and ridiculous claims. Some claim the KJV is “better than the Greek”; others declare than the KJV must be used in preaching or a person cannot be born again! There are devoted dummies on both sides of the issue.
If a man tells me he sincerely wants to know about eternal things, I will send him to the King James Bible for the truth. I tell him that it is God’s instruction manual for mankind 
which was accurately translated into English from the reliable and preserved Hebrew and Greek texts and preserved by God therefore, is totally reliable.
All the modern versions are based on corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the work of evolutionists Westcott and Hort, radical unbelievers. They were Anglican scholars who never missed a chance to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Bible; but they did not disprove it. According to Dr. Jack Moorman’s book on Bible manuscripts, Westcott and Hort’s Vatican and Sinai manuscripts of the New Testament contain more than 8,000 differences with the traditional text underlying the King James Bible!
I can’t think of anything more shattering than for congregations to be told that the Bible on their laps is full of mistakes, misquotes, and misinformation. It is not if it is the KJV.
All right, for sake of argument, I could be wrong. If I have placed too much confidence in the Word of God, I will discover that at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I suppose Christ will say, “Don, you were wrong about the KJV being totally reliable. You were too committed to my Word!” I believe He will correct my error but with a smile and nod.
After all, I have only convinced people to place too much reliance on the Word of God–not the worse sin to commit; however, those who burn incense to the corrupt modern translations are guilty of taking away from the Word of the living God who promised to preserve it forever!
If I am to be wrong, it will be in favor of the Word that He promised in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: …Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Either He did or He didn’t!
So, honest people will look at the issue and come down on the side that is most convincing; however, it takes character to change when one has gone on record for most of his or her life. It’s difficult to admit a mistake. Tolstoy expressed this when he wrote, “I know that most men…can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
However, having a reliable Bible is not a simple issue but it is sublime. I’ve made my decision and if I’m wrong, Christ will correct me. Same with you!’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/does-the-bible-contain-fake-news-and-false-stories-by-fallible-writers
‘Under Old Testament law, vulgarity was forbidden and the penalty was serious. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)
Under grace, the standard for such speech is even higher. It extends to any words that have the slightest bent toward disrespect of God’s name, vulgarity, swearing, and even vain repetition. In setting a higher standard, Jesus said that committing such an act in the heart is the same as actually doing it. (Matthew 5:29) The epistles overflow with commands saying that questionable speech and vulgarity do not belong in the mouths of the saints. Paul tells us that if we rein in our thoughts, we can guard our words against those things that offend a holy God.
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” (II Corinthians 10:5)
With all this in mind, can you tell me why our present world is covered with a tidal wave of vulgarity? The offense is multiplied when humans, made in the image of God, actually defend the right to be foul mouthed! A celebration of vulgarity.
WHO SHOULD BE SURPRISED?
A foul mouth 
rises from a corrupt, putrid heart. We are surprised when a wicked heart is polite, kind, reasonable, and gentle in speech. It does happen. The reader has learned by now that I leave the devotional ministry, in the main, to my other friends; and they do well with it. My task, however, is to be a truth teller; and even believers are uncomfortable with truth in plain speech. Let’s be clear about this. Any heart that has rejected Christ as Savior is “wicked”. It has committed the most heinous sin that can be committed. The murder of the unborn and sodomy are wicked acts, but rejection of the Son of God, His deity, and His virgin birth are the height of wickedness. That is why liberalism is a wicked movement. It is why the majority of people you know are wicked. That is why some politicians, judges, and business men and women are wicked. So, when they vent their wickedness through their foul mouths, it is only a confession of just how evil they are. We are obligated to remember that God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son. We are commanded to remember that God hates all sin, both small and great. While we are commanded to love all mankind, we must hate what God hates.
IMMERSED IN A WORLD OF VULGARITY
It is everywhere – news, radio, television, printed media, and our own communities. Spirit-filled Christians are buried in verbal filth at work, school, and out in public. No-one seems to care that God has forbidden such low-level conversation. If we go out for a special dinner, the conversation at the next table often turns to garbage. Try enjoying a night with the family at a special sports event -there is an onslaught of offensive language on all four sides. How many times have you been driving somewhere and encountered vulgar warfare between drivers or pedestrians? We live in a world where many people have the morals of a “junk-yard dog” with language to match. If you want a real eyeful or earful, go to social media. If you try to have a reasonable discussion, some liberal will bust in with a string of vulgarity that only demonstrates that he doesn’t have the slightest idea of what an answer should be… but he sure knows how to cuss!
You get the point: it’s a bad world out there. Let me ask you a question: Is there anything God’s people can do when buried in such despicable situations? There are times when it is best to be silent. In the vulgar world, people have been known to become violent if they think you are “judging” them. We know what Jesus did under such temptation; He quoted scripture. Many of you do that on Facebook. We can try a reasonable answer, but that usually doesn’t work with people who have rejected truth as a way of thinking. We probably don’t think of praying for depraved people, but that might be the first thing that should come to our mind. Of course, you could isolate yourself and pretend it is not really happening; but remember that “Silence isn’t always golden; sometimes it is just plain yellow!” Of course, you could side with the perpetrator and defend him/her by attacking the person who brought up the subject of holiness and truth.
THIS IS WHAT REALLY HURTS
It is so easy to pick on the children of the devil. In case you have forgotten, anyone who is not a child of God through faith in Christ is a child of the devil. That is the reason why they lie, cheat, steal, and communicate with vulgarity.
Would someone please explain why there is so much vulgarity flowing from the mouths, pens, and keyboards of those who call themselves Christians? You can see it for yourself. Go to Facebook right now, and see how many vulgar words are being used by those you think are believers. Sure, they think hiding vulgarity in code (OMG, etc.) is not the same thing. Shame on anyone who tries to defend “hidden swearing”. If I were an unbeliever, I sure would not be impressed with the fact that your foul language is just like mine.
You sure wouldn’t expect to hear this kind of language at church, right? Then you might want to listen a bit more carefully. Have you listened carefully to the conversations of teens? What boggles my mind is that several “evangelical gurus” have been championing vulgar language inside their messages and teaching. It may get some laughs, but it is not funny. Teaching others to sin does not set well with a holy God. Those who feel free to abuse grace hate it when their feet are held to the fire. When they are angry about the message, they attack the messenger. That is an old liberal trick.
APPLICATION
This seems like an impossible task. How do we get rid of this plague? In our own lives, we follow the commandment “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation”.
(I Peter 1:15) Since God lives within us, the answer is that His holiness makes it possible for us to live His holiness out in our living and speech. That means we don’t defend vulgarity in our lives or in the lives of others. Remember – silence is approval.’ https://shepherdstaff.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/vulgarity-celebrated/
Genesis 1:26,27 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.’
Why all this recent gender questioning? Could it be open rebellion against the Creator God? What will be the result of all this gender changing in twenty or less years? God’s answer to all one’s burdens is in Matthew 11:28-30 ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light’ and accepting the truth of Psalm 139:14 ‘I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.’
Psalm 139:14 “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
Believe it or not, the ‘Satanic Temple,
a liberal anti-Christian group that self-proclaims to represent “compassion and empathy,” is offering hugs and kisses in exchange for donations that fund two pro-abortion lawsuits filed against the State of Missouri, the International Business Times reports.’
‘The Satanic Temple, a Salem, Massachusetts-based organization led by Lucien Greaves, is suing to overturn a Missouri law that requires a 72-hour waiting period before an abortion where a woman can view an ultrasound of her unborn baby and hear the fetal heartbeat; the Satanist group
also is challenging a law ensuring women receiving literature that states life begins at conception, the report continues.
‘“They violate our belief in the inviolability of one’s body,” said the Satanic Temple.’ http://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/10/satantic-temple-celebrates-valentines-day-with-hugs-and-kisses-for-satan-fundraiser-for-abortion/
From the picture above one has to admit that (1) these “women” probably wouldn’t make the best mother anyway and (2) what sober clear thinking man would get them pregnant? However, that isn’t the point to this post.
The main point being that there is something unique about humans! What is it? For one thing humans are made in the image of their Creator. Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
The Non-conformist Matthew Henry states “That man was made in God’s image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God’s person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God’s honour that is put upon man, who is God’s image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king’s impress upon the coin. God’s image upon man consists in these three things:–” Those three things are (1) “In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his.” (2) “In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God’s representative, or viceroy, upon earth…” (3) “In his purity and rectitude. God’s image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.”
However, something occurred in Genesis Chapter Three when man disobeyed his Maker and the result as Mathew Henry says is “…this image of God upon man (is) defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it!”
The Good News is that through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ one may be delivered “…from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins…” Acts 26: 18.
whatyareckon 