Interesting Tidbits of History

 A collection of previous posts on historical topics

• Is Genesis History? link
• Documentary: Patterns of Evidence, Exodus  link
• Documentary: Patterns of Evidence, Moses Controversy link
• Comments on Baptists, from their enemies link
• Early Christian History of Britain link
• The Waldenses - Interesting Old Book by Samuel Morland 1658, link 
• BBC, English and The Battle For The Language of The Bible, link
• A Father's Admonition to His Son - King James VI & I to Prince Henry, link
• The King James Translators Preface to the Readers, link

Notes From and About the King James Bible

Why This Blog?

Hello, this blog started with two goals in mind.  
(1) As a way to share my notes that I had on various topics, along with Scripture references written in the front and back of my Bible.  
(2) Explain the reasons for advocating the King James Bible in preference to ALL other modern English versions.

The way I study my Bible, might be different than someone else, but it is important nevertheless to study rather than simply read as if one was reading a novel.  Paul commended Timothy in II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  I generally like to read a chapter, and as I do I will attempt to boil it down to a handful of "bullet-points". So instead of starting at the beginning with Genesis and reading through to Revelation, I tend to pick sections such as creation, end times, history of the kings, the law, pauls letters, the prophets etc.  For example - Genesis thru Josuha or Judges thru Kings and Chronicles. Along the way, the entire Bible is not only read, but studied. These notes are mostly in here but some have been pulled out into their own post or page.

Many years ago I became aware of some of the newer Bible versions and while I realized they seemed to be worded or phrased in a more modern style, I never thought to look into it further.  I had always had a KJV and never had a reason to get another Bible.  It wasn't until many years after becoming aware of newer versions that I began to look into the matter.  The first thing that struck me was that specific verses were missing.  I wanted to know why.  You can read my notes on the KJV and why I am such an advocate for this and only this version, at least for English-speaking people here - "Why the King James Bible Stands Alone"

Comments on Baptists From their Enemies

If anyone has any familiarity with the booklet called "The Trail of Blood" (link ==> here), you may have noticed a quote on the first few pages, from a man known as Hosius Stanislaus.  This quote has caused some dispute, as its supposedly from a work titled "Apud Opera".  I will add, that while I am no historian or scholar, my impression of the Trail of Blood, is the author may be making some leaps to label so many groups as Baptist.  The Author, JM Carroll does however, on page 10 acknowledge "Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings."  That said, Carroll does provide numerous other quotes that echo my sentiments in general as well, that there have always been those that stood on the same doctrine of (1) Salvation by faith alone, without works and (2) Baptistm, while important, does not save.  They might not have always had buildings with signs out front, nor respected among the establishment, but they were there.  Some individuals may have been, at some points members of the Catholic church, but from the beginning there were those that would not adhere to those that would eventually become the Catholic church.  They refused to attend their councils and their demands to baptize their babies.  They preached the Gospel though pains of persecution and death.

On the subject of the works of Hosius Stanislaus, one work I did manage to find of his is titled "A Most Excelent Treatise of the begynnyng of herefyes ".  If anyone is familiar with the recent troubles at the Archive.org website, it might not surprise you when I say that website is having trouble still.  The work in question was originally written in Latin in 1565, but was translated into English (early modern/late middle) by another high-ranking Catholic cardinal named Richard Shacklock in about 1601.  A screenshot of the cover I provide below.  I can no longer locate this on Archive.org for some reason, but there is another copy (see link ==> here) which is actually more readable, but one needs to create a (free) account on archive.org to access the content. Another copy on the University of Oxford website is here (see link ==> here). In this book, the author makes numerous mentions of Anabaptists and connects them with the same doctrine dating all the way back to the time of Augustine (of Hippo), eg.  350AD.  Just one more tidbit to illustrate that Baptists are not "protestants", for they were around well before the "reformation".

 This is what the original copy of Richard Shacklock's translation looked like.  

Here is sample scan of just one of the pages I found interesting.  Out of the mouth of a high-ranking Catholic, they are connecting Baptists all the way back to the time of Augustine (of Hippo most likely, eg. 350 AD).  I've tried to highlight the portion of the text I'm referring to. The text says (in summary) that the doctrine of the Anabaptist reigned also in the time (tyme) of saint Augustine.

A Father's Admonition to His Son - King James VI & I to Prince Henry

 Recently I have re-discovered the fact that King James himself wrote many letters and these have been collected into various volumes.  I find it interesting to peek inside the thoughts of the man that God used to bring so many of the best scholars and linguists together for the translating of God's word into English.  

The title is a bit lengthy, and the writing is in the 1611 style English, but it is readable.

The workes of the most high and mightie prince, Iames, by the grace of God, king of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith
link here

The link above should take you to page 137, for a section titled 

HIS MAIESTIES IN
STRVCTIONS TO HIS
DEAREST SONNE, HENRY
The Prince.

Sound advice for any father to give his son, especially if this son is to be a ruler of men...a few examples

- Fear God
- Make ALL your laws spring from God's laws

What or who does God hate?

 If you ask most Christians this question, many if not most would say something to the effect "no, of course not". One euphemism commonly repeated is "love the sinner, hate the sin", but this isn't found in the Bible, but rather was said by Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, yet many Christians repeat this as if it were Scripture.

First, our authority on a topic needs to come from scripture, not what the preacher or some commentary says.
II Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
II Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Let's look at a few examples that seem to indicate that a blanket statement such as "God loves everybody", or "we're all God's children", just isn't supported in scripture.

Examples of God hating individuals

Lev 26:30
And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Gee whiz, that sounds mean...how come we never hear that preached in churches?

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Psalms 5:5-6 
5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 
5:6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalms 6:8 
Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

Matt 7:23
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Psalms 10:3 
For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

The scriptures are telling us plainly that the Lord does not just hate sin, but the sinner also.

Hosea 9:15 God hated them....hmmm, not just sinful actions.  Some say this is just Hosea saying this, but where is God rebuking Hosea for saying this? Again, II Tim 3:16, he spoke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost

Proverbs 1:24-30 doesn't sound like God is loving toward those who have rejected him, this also rebukes Calvinism because they did not choose to fear the Lord.
for example, in verse 26:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

Now when calamity comes upon them and they call upon the Lord, He will not answer them.  This is an example of a reprobate as mentioned in Romans 1

II Tim 3:1-8 speaks of those being reprobate concerning the faith and to turn away from them.

Acts 1:16-20 concerning Judas which the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David which references Psalms 69:28(let his habitation be desolate) and 109:7-16 (let his bisopprik take)

Psalms 69:28 says let them be blotted out of the book of the living, gee that's pretty harsh...

Psalms 109:7-16, Gee this passage sounds pretty harsh also toward individuals, not just the sin 

Acts 13:22 God says that David, son of Jesse was a man after his own heart

Psalms 139:21,22 David, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost says that he hates those that hate the Lord.  In verses 23,24 he says "search me and see if there be any wicked way in me". 

Some might say this was just David speaking on his own accord, but where is the proof of this.  Is David ever rebuked by God for saying these things?

Common objections

Some will use the verses below to justify a blanket 

John 3:16 
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

note: For God so loved the world.  This is past tense.  

I Tim 2:4 
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

II Peter 3:9 
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Yes, God would rather everyone get saved. God showed his love toward the world by sending His Son in the flesh, that the world through him might be saved. Yet some would refernce this to invite homosexuals, pedophiles and other degenerates into church to have cookies and koolaid with the children.

Yet there are those that the Bible speaks of who hate the Lord and have rejected His offer of salvation one too many times. This is the meaning of a reprobate.

Romans 1:27
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Those that hate the Lord

II Chronicles 19:2
And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

Summary
Helping your unsaved,stubborn neighbor who has yet to believe and trust that they are bound for hell yet Jesus died for their sins is one thing.  Helping those that hate the Lord is another. Your neighbor might not yet understand the good news of the gospel, but they hopefully aren't actively involved in things that promote wickedness, blaspheme His Word, or persecute God's people. This world is full to the brim with degenerate people who despise the things of God and are hard at work trying to turn His truth into a lie.  

What Does The Bible Say Regarding The Law for Christians

Introduction
There is a common perception among Christians that the law of Moses and the Old Testament in general are only in the Bible for historical purposes, or something to that effect.  Many will reply with something along the lines of "we're under grace now, not the law".  The problem is they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. On the other hand, there are those that say we still need to keep the law, feasts and festivals etc.  Let's look at what the Bible says regarding the law. 

What is meant by the "law"?
Generally, this will refer to the Ten Commandments, found in Exodus ch 20 as well as other laws and ordinances in the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  These laws prescribed the types of punishments for certain types of sin, ordinances for the priests, dealing with sacrifices and offerings, various ways to keep clean and many other things. Many of the things mentioned would seem harsh by todays standards.

Saved by Grace, through faith alone
There are so many places in the New Testament that salvation is of faith and faith alone. Paul spent a great deal of his epistles hammering this very subject.  Here are but a few examples:
Saved by grace through faith, not our works Ephesians 2:8,9
By His mercy Titus 3:5
Justified by faith without the law Romans 3:28
Grace or works? one or the other, it cant be part both Romans 11:6

All Scripture is still relevant
Profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction II Timothy 3:16
Not subject to your private interpretation II Peter 1:20
God promised to preserve His Word Psalms 12:6,7
Sodom and Ghomora still an example today Jude 1:7
Things that happened to their fathers are to be examples for us I Corinthians 10:11

Paul dealt with Judiazers
In the book of Galatians, Paul dealt with those that tried to bring believers back under jewish traditions with feasts, observing new moons etc.

What then serveth the law?
So if a Christian is to be justified by faith alone, yet ALL Scripture is still relevant for us, how  then should they view all the things mentioned in Exodus through Deuteronomy. As mentioned in the beginning, many will typically throw the baby out with the bathwater, casting aside punishments for adultery, theft or even murder.
Do whatever we want because we're not under the law? No! Romans 6:14,15
Paul accused of saying, do evil.  Romans 3:8,9
However, the law is still good, if used lawfully, according to the gospel I Timothy 1:8-11
Jesus referenced the law in Matthew 15:4 which is referring to Ex 20:12 and Ex 21:17

Summary
- One is saved by grace through faith, without the deeds of the law
- Christians are not under the law, but under grace
- Being under grace doesn't give us the right to do whatever we want
- The law is still good and we can look to it for examples of what is right and wrong for those things that still apply, eg.  murder etc.
- America for most of its early history used the Old Testament laws as a template for it's own laws. Some were taken straight out of Leviticus.

Baptism Is Important But It Doesn't Save

Does Baptism save?

The short answer is - NO, salvation is only by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a false doctrine out there known as "baptismal regeneration". It teaches that without being baptized you are not going to heaven. Those that hold to this generally also believe that one can lose their salvation, which is also false.  The aspect of baptism being a necessary part of salvation is like many other false doctrines, which come about by taking verses out of context or using symbolism (and also often out of context) in place of clear scriptures. Also, the reverse can often be used to promote false doctrine - that of taking something literal when symbolism is being implied. Baptism is simply a picture of one's public acknowledgement of belief and trust in the gospel and pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. See Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 which is clearly symbolic, unless you try to imply that you literally need to be buried also, or circumcised? Baptism alone or in part does not save someone.

Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ 

John 3:16-18
whosoever believeth, nothing else is mentioned in order to receive eternal life.
Acts 8:35-38 
Phillip responded to the eunuch when he asked what prevented him from getting baptized as that only IF he believed with all his heart.
Acts 16:29-33
Clear question as to what one MUST do to be saved. Answer is clear, just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 3:28
A man is justified by faith, not faith + baptism, nor baptism alone
Romans 4:5-8
To him that worketh not.  Faith alone for remission of sins past, present and future!

In fact, the whole of the Scriptures is that salvation comes simply by faith.  Some would say also that it was "different in the Old Testament...you had to keep the law and do sacrifices".  To that, we find the following:

Hebrews 10:1
The law was a shadow of things to come 
Hebrews 10:4
The blood of bulls and goats should not take away sins
Hebrews 9:22
without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins

So, if blood must be shed for the remission of sins and yet the blood of bulls and goats wouldn't do it, who or what's blood is required?
The answer is - the blood of Jesus! 1 John 1:7

So, let's look at some areas of Scripture where those advocating this false doctrine will have you turn to "prove" their point.

Scriptures used to advocate "Baptismal regeneration"

Mark 1:1-4
The remission of sins = forgiveness of sins. The way you get pardoned of sins = baptism? So, at first glance, this seems to contradict Acts 10:43 that says by believing we should get remission of sin. The Word of God has no contradictions. If you find something at first glance appears to be a contradiction, you either have a corrupted text (which is why I stick with the KJV) or you simply need to study.
So then just what IS John's baptism being mentioned here in Mark I? The key to this is found in the first part of Acts 19 where we find a passage that has Paul asking if they at Corinth had received the Holy ghost yet? They replied that they didn't even know there was a Holy ghost! Ephesians 1:13 makes it clear that one must believe and trust the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is then that you receive the Holy ghost. Then Paul asks them unto what they were baptized, and their reply was unto John's baptism. Paul then confirmed that John baptized with the baptism of repentance saying that they should believe on the one that should come after him. When they heard this, THEN they got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I find it remarkable that the label Baptist was first in the form of ana-baptist, which means "re-baptize and it was a derogatory term! Only later was the term "ana" dropped. Yet here Paul is telling people that unless they believe FIRST then get baptized, then baptism is of no use. This is why we need to do like those Bereans in Acts 17:11 and search the scriptures daily to see if these things be so!

I Peter 3:21
This seems to be the favorite of those advocating baptism being necessary to go to heaven. First, this chapter is being addressed to those that were already saved. Second, this individual verse makes it clear that baptism is a like figure, or symbol of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In other words, it is figurative.

Acts 2:38
Again, this passage some use to claim that it is baptism that gives us the remission of sins.  It's worth noting that it is this same chapter some use to advocate what is known as "speaking in tongues" and typically point to this chapter (verse 4) but if you keep reading after verse 4, it's clear that this simply means other languages, not some gibberish that nobody can understand.  Ok, so what of baptism here?  Again, how does one receive remission of sins? It is only the blood of Jesus and believing on Him! So, verse 38 where it says "Repent, and be baptized", Peter is not saying anything different than Paul nor is Peter contradicting any other part of Scripture. We see the same sequence of events - believe THEN baptism. Also, like elsewhere, if we KEEP READING, this is made clear, as in just a few verses later, the Bible says in verse 41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized".  Jesus nails this in John 3:1-6 describing how someone becomes born again.

Mark 16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Another of the go-to verses for those advocating baptism being necessary to go to heaven. Where they fall into error is taking this verse literally. So then one must ask that if one believes but is not baptized what then? So, they don't go to hell because they believe, but don't go to heaven because they weren't baptized?  Sorry, there is no "purgatory" either.  Ok, so if you take this literally, then let's look at another passage about baptism in Colossians chapter 2

2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:  

2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

If you take verse 12 literally, then will you also take verse 11 literally?  Ouch!

Conclusion

There are lots of things the Bible talks about what we should do after believing, but there is one thing and only one thing that we must do to go heaven.  Anything we add to that one thing is the equivalent to saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ isn't enough. There is a reason John 3:16 is one of the most famous verses in the Bible.  It is so simple yet so powerful.  Simply believe and put ALL your trust in Jesus and what HE did in order to avoid hell and go to heaven instead.  

Common Contentions

Below are a few key subjects that can cause contentions/arguments over what the Bible teaches. Many Baptists today hold the following views:
- The rapture will occur BEFORE Daniel's 70th week begins
- The Jews are still God's chosen people
- Homosexuals can be saved
- We're not to judge anyone
- America is still a Christian nation, a shining city on a hill.  We just have a problem with democrats.

Below are a few areas of Scripture that address these subjects.  Also note that when addressing someone who is likely going to be older than you or is at very least saved and a brother/sister in Christ...reprove with scripture instead of rebuke. In other words, be respectful.
- Rebuke not an Elder, I Timothy 5:1
- Reprove with scripture, II Timothy 3:16

Don't judge
- Reprove not a scorner, Proverbs 9:8
- Judge righteous judgement, John 7:24
- Pull the beam out of thine own eye, Matthew 7:3,4
- Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, Matthew 7:6

Kings and kingdoms
- Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, Isaiah 10:1
- By me kings rule, Proverbs 8:15,16
- Jehu rebukes Jehoshaphat, II Chron 19:2
- Obey the laws of the land, Romans ch 13
- Judge not for man, but for the Lord, II Chronicles 19:6

Israel
- Genesis 12 vs II Chronicles 19:2, Galatians 3:16,28,29, Romans 9:6

Reprobates
- Worthy of death, Romans 1, same as Leviticus 20:13
- Don't negotiate with terrorists, I Kings 20
- No rest for the wise man that contends with a fool, Proverbs 29:9

Rapture BEFORE tribulation
- II Thessalonians ch 2 is clear the antichrist must be revealed first, and that doesn't happen until the middle of the 7 year period known as Daniel's 70th week.
- Jesus is speaking to Christians in Matthew 24

Trusting Science and Talking to Agnostics

 Trusting in science 

The world and society we live in today is part of a paradigm, which is a way of looking at things.  It rests ones understanding - on a set of accepted truths. Go back through the centuries and the paradigms have changed.  Medical treatments just a hundred years ago involved using electrical shock for various ailments. Go back farther, some treatments involved blood-letting, which today would be considered foolish and barbaric.  Since the Bible was also more widely believed in earlier times, society today tends to discount both.  In other words, since people in the past believed various myths, eg. trolls and goblins, and now we know better, therefore the Bible is simply a legacy of our past that was superstitious. The thinking goes on to conclude that we are progressing in our knowledge and it is our own understanding of the world and the science that goes with it which we must put our confidence in.  Science, over time promises to lead us to the answers that once were steeped in religious myth.

Where science falls short

It's common today, at least in the western world to put faith in technology and science.  Unless it can be proven physically or empirically, it's either a fabricated lie or opinion, or something to that effect. It is then relegated to the sidelines unless it agrees with today's paradigm, its theories and mathematical models. The world we live in today, while having produced great wonders of technology, has also failed to explain what the Bible refers to as evil.  How can there be so much pain and suffering in the world if a god really exists?  Where did we come from and why are we here? 

Polite Disbelief

At best, those who trust science for answers to age-old problems, will lump all the worlds religions in the same basket.  Then they will proclaim that all religions basically teach the same thing - be kind to others, do good things and behave yourself.  This just happens to be the direction many of the established religions are taking also, including those claiming Christianity, and will ultimately lead to a common religion for the whole world.  This includes especially the Catholic church, who for years now has been attempting to bring the worlds religions together. Some distinguish between an agnostic and an atheist, but the Bible only regards two distinctions on the matter of belief - you either believe the God of the Bible or you don't. 

Come, let us reason together

The God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, invites you to know the truth.  Go ahead, try to investigate the claims of the Bible, see if you can prove them wrong.  Just be honest with yourself.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Things to consider:

(1) What are the odds that the world we live in would be created with so much complexity, by mere coincidence?

(2) What are the odds that so many cultures in the world, separated by great distances, have a story of a great flood in their distant past. 

(3) What of the scientists and geologists who refute the idea of billions of years for the creation of the grand canyon and accept the Biblical account of a great flood, which involves not a small amount of water over long periods of time but instead, involved large amounts of water over a relatively short time.

(4) What are the odds that there were men who lived hundreds and hundreds of years before Jesus was born, who foretold of someone the Bible calls a messiah.  They tell of the timeframe of his birth, the location, the family, what others would say of him, the things he would say and do, how he would be forsaken, and how he would be killed.

(5) What are the odds that there would be an ancient canal diverting water from the Nile in Egypt that to this day, bears the name of Joseph. The Bible refers to a man named Joseph who was a Hebrew sold into slavery, and yet the Egyptian pharaoh elevated him above all his other men and helped Egypt through a great famine. This same Joseph the Bible describes as having interpreted Pharaoh's dream which involved cows and the Nile river and a resulting time of plenty followed by a time of famine.

(6) What of the archeologists that accept the Biblical account of Moses and the Exodus? Why would they do that?  Maybe you should investigate?

(7) What of the independent, non-Christian accounts of Jesus and his followers, such as the Roman senator Tacitus? 

Summary

Science can neither prove nor dis-prove the existence of God, or the miracles and diety of Jesus Christ. However, we do have written, first-hand accounts of the things said by Jesus and his miracles witnessed by scores of individuals, all contained in the gospels of the Bible. All of creation itself bears witness of a creator.  In the end, it comes down to whether someone is willing to place their faith in something they cannot see.  

Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The Trail of Blood - 2007 Sermon by Pastor Dan Ferrell

 I'm Baptist Because...

Love this old sermon from a few years ago.  Lots of history covered in just over an hour.  The phrase that has stuck with me - "history is what you know, heritage is what you keep!".  Mentions groups like the Waldenses. Long story short - there have always been groups of believers that shared the same basic beliefs of Baptists, long before they were called by that name.

Early American Law and Punishment

 Crime and Punishment in 1650 America

Go back far enough in American history and you will find laws and the punishments for breaking them, taken straight out of the Bible!

source: The Code of 1650, being a compilation of the earliest laws and orders of the General Court of Connecticut, archive.org, page 30

Dispensationalism, Scofield, and Ryrie

Dispelling Dispensationalism

The word dispensation appears only 4 times in the Bible, and only in the New Testament: I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10 & 3:2 and Colossians 1:25.  In each case it is referring to a giving of the gospel.  From here, depending on who you read or listen to, the root word became an "ism" to a doctrine or teaching called Dispensationalism.  

This post is simply a collection of some of my thoughts on the subject. I've also included a few examples of things to highlight in the various "study Bibles" that promote this doctrine.  However, there is a documentary that pretty well sums up both what this doctrine teaches, but where it began as well.  Watch this when you get a chance.

Dispensation of Heresy

Overview

The basic premise of Dispensational-ism is that there are a number of different identifiable periods in the Bible in which God dealt with man in different ways. What the Bible does teach however, is that God spake with man differently in times past, as we read in Hebrews 1

1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,  

1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

However, the key doctrines of Dispensationalism, are more or less:
- A number of distinct "dispensations", typically 7
- A distinction between Israel and the church
- A rapture of believers before the end times begin, although some do vary on this.
- Salvation required works in the Old Testament and will again also in the end times, although this view varies also and is less common today.

Supposedly, I Timothy 2:15 justifies dividing up the Bible into these dispensations.

Variations of Dispensationalism

There seem to be at least two that I am aware of and the primary distinction being that of whether salvation was always by faith alone, or did it involve works of some sort in the Old Testament.

Who is CI Scofield and why should I care

Cyrus Scofield is a name who most are familiar with only by way of his "study Bible".  I wont focus on his personal life, but merely on his work that is included in his and subsequent "study Bibles". That work being that of notes and references included in various "study Bibles". These notes and references suggest and teach the doctrine of dispensationalism and a pre-tribulation rapture, among others. 

Scofield Study Bible

At one time, it was a very popular study Bible, and to this day still influences many pastors, especially Baptists. A while back, while researching the issues with Scofield and his footnotes, I decided to find both an original and a newer version on eBay.  I managed to find an original 1917 Scofield, still in the box!

Problems with Scofield and his Bible. 

First, see the photos below of the Introduction in the "Old Scofield", specifically section XI.  Scofield is questioning the Authorized Version (KJV) in which he is placing his notes.  He states he would prefer to use the newest version (then it was the RV). He then goes on to heap praise on men like Westcott and Hort for "clearing the Greek Textus Receptus (TR) of minor inaccuracies".

Old Scofield preface - iii

Old Scofield preface - iv

 

The New Scofield

This is a "new" Scofield, from 1967, yes they are different editions. Those familiar with the Scofield Bible are aware of the "updates".

Key things to note in the Scofield

- Both the original or "Old" Scofield and the "new" casts doubts on the authority and infallibility of the KJV translation accuracy
- Both the Old and New Scofield promote notion that the physical nation of Israel as being God's elect in Matthew 24:34
- Both suggest another creation period in Genesis 1 that is in a "dateless past"
- The "new" Scofield however, takes things a step further in at least one area, see II Thessalonians 2:2, it actually changes the text of the verse itself from  "...the day of Christ is at hand" to "the day of the Lord is present". The original Scofield makes this suggestion in its notes (as does the new), but does not change the actual text of the verse.

 

Ryrie Study Bible

Along the same lines as Scofield, another popular "study" Bible that emphasizes a pre-tribulational and dispensational teaching in its various footnotes and references. 

Below is a photo of a Ryrie KJV "study" Bible, opened to II Thessalonians 2.  Note what is mentioned in the footnotes regarding verse 2, with the use of "better manuscripts".  Ryrie is likely referring to the same "better" text that Scofield did who favored the Greek text of men like Westcott & Hort.

My Thoughts

I reject the use of the word dispensation as an "ism" and the teaching that comes along with it. Just give me a King James Bible without man's words to tell me what I'm supposed to think it says.

- I have a hard time trusting a man which questions the King James Bible but yet wants to teach me what these Scriptures mean.
- Many people who rely on a Scofield KJV, read the notes as if they were Scripture and yet are not aware that Scofield himself doubted the accuracy of the King James Bible and its translators.

- God told Jeremiah that the day would come when He would bring a new covenant, as the children of Israel had failed to keep the former, see Jeremiah 31
- Yes, God spoke in different ways at different times, yet salvation has always been by faith alone, regardless of the law. Further, there is now neither Jew nor Greek, we are all one in Christ - to those that believe. See Galatians 3

Poking Holes In The Pre-Trib Rapture Doctrine

 The Pre-Trib Doctrine

Note - this post is more or less a reformatting of 10 Common Reasons and Questions about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, see here.
Ever since I can remember, any Baptist sermon that involved, or even mentioned end times, included one or more of the following:

- Christians will not go through "THE tribulation" as we are not appointed unto wrath, referring to I Thessalonians 5:9

- The rapture was not taught before Paul, since he refers to it as a "mystery" in 1 Corinthians 15:51

- "THE Tribulation" refers to the entire 7 year period

- Since Matthew 24:36 says no man knows the day or the hour, Jesus could return at any moment

The above seems to be "cherry picking"...

Ok, if you've accepted the views above, then stop for a few minutes and consider the following:

- If the entire 7 year period is known as "THE Tribulation" and is also God's wrath why is it that God's wrath doesn't start until AFTER the sun & moon are darkened in Revelation 6 (see here)? In other words, if God's wrath doesn't start until other things have occurred, then are those other things also God's wrath, or something else? Either way, the 7 year period has already begun by the time the wrath begins. Could it be, that tribulation is something being done by the devil, but when the wrath begins, it is those things that God Himself is bringing about?

- If we let the Bible define itself, where else (do a search here) is the word "mystery" used and does it imply something wasn't known before? See Mark 4:11

- Paul tell us that the antichrist has to be revealed before the day of Christ in II Thessalonians 2:1-4. Since the antichrist is revealed DURING the 7 year period, how can the rapture occur before this period even begins?

The Adventure of English - The Battle For The Language of The Bible

 The English language we speak today is the result of changes over time going back hundreds of years. There was a point at which if one wanted to hear or read the Scriptures, it was in something other than English. The mere act of trying to produce a Bible in English was risking ones own life. The KJV translators mention this trouble in their message to the readers.

The documentary below is primarily concerned with a history of the English language, but in this episode it picks up with the story of translating the Holy Scriptures into English, leading to what we know today as the King James Version.

The Adventure of English, episode 3

I have heard some suggest that since the more modern KJV Bibles differ in the English being used from the original 1611 version, this is evidence that the "Bible has been changed".  The language may have changed, but God's Word has been preserved.  This cannot be said for others such as the NIV, ESV etc with verses missing and rearranged to suggest a different meaning.  

The KJV came about at a time when several confluent efforts were underway, one of which was a standardization of the English language itself.  One interesting point mentioned in the documentary that there was a point at which English differed depending on what part of the country you were in.  It was only under the consolidating efforts of the King when he made it known that official documents would only be in English, rather a myriad of other languages, namely French.  This helped consolidate the variances in the English language itself so that when the efforts began to translate the Scriptures into English, there was a consistent language to use.  The result speaks for itself.

Is Genesis History?

The accepted view today of how the world was created and the story of a great flood, is that of mainstream science and academia. That story involves billions of years and a series of floods that didn't cover the entire earth.  However, it wasn't too long ago that many held as truth, the Bible's account of how the earth was formed and what occurred during Noah's flood.  

 A while back I watched a documentary with the same title "Is Genesis History".  The first 20 minutes or so I began to realize that which I had not yet been aware of.  That being the numerous scientists and geologists that actually do support the Biblical account of the flood.

Here is the documentary.  

One of the more notable subjects discussed involves the Grand Canyon.  A number of geologists, whom mainstream academia have largely sidelined, actually support the Biblical account of a global flood. This is covered in the first 20 min or so of the documentary.  The walls of the canyon give us a glimpse into the earth. Considering that there seems to be no evidence of erosion between the layers of strata in the canyon, brings into question the billions of years narrative.  In short, there is far more evidence for a large amount of water over a short time period - as opposed to a small amount of water over a really long time.  What other account can you think of that involves a large amount of water and a short amount of time? It's recorded in the Bible, starting in Genesis chapter 6.

I think you will enjoy the documentary, I know I did.

Early Christian History of Britain

 

British History

Go just about anywhere in Britain, scratch the dirt and you are likely to find anything from medieval period metal to Roman or even pre-Roman pottery. This little island nation is rich in history, as are the surrounding areas of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It is also very complex, involving multiple kingdoms and nations. 

Why bother with all this you say? As I heard a pastor once say, history is what you know, heritage is what you keep. The King James Bible is one of the best history books you can read.  Paul had told the church at Corinth earlier, in I Corinthians 10:11 not to forget the past, especially what had happened to their fathers that were with Moses. In Ezekiel 26 we read about the destruction of Tyrus (Tyre) and how it happened, yet not who specifically conquered it.  The Bible does name others who were to come against Tyre, but not the people that eventually conquer it. We can however, from historical records say that it was Alexander the Great and the methods he used, namely building the causeway out to the island for his forces to cross, is exactly as the Bible describes. 

A little background is due here.  At the time of Paul's journey to Rome, the Roman empire had already invaded Britain over 100 years earlier under Julius Caesar and then again (with a larger force) later in 47 AD under Emperor Claudius (see wiki here). So in the time period of II Timothy, Rome had already had connections with Britain.  It is also worth noting that according to some historians, there had been trade routes between the Mediterranean and Britain going back hundreds or even thousands of years, see this: wiki.  It's interesting to consider that at the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Romans had been in Britain (then called Britania) and in about 61 AD, although being outnumbered 20 to 1, the Romans still defeated Boudica at the Battle of Watling street link here ==> wiki (although the exact location is still debated).

Wales

I suppose I should note that it was the subject of Wales that started much of my research. While watching various history content, there was a trend I was noticing.  That being the idea that the western and northern sections of Britain were never fully conquered or subdued by either the Romans or the Anglo-Saxons that came later. That is important when it comes to the notion of how Christianity came to this area. The Catholics and the Church of England, claim Britain had been under papal authority since earliest times.  We know there were English language Bibles before the King James Bible of 1611.  We know of the numerous persecutions of the Romans against Christians and later by the Catholic church in the 1400 and 1500's. That leaves a big window of time that little seems to be known about just what was going on in Britain.  Also, how did the Gospel come to Britain in the first place?  The conclusion of my readings is that there seems to have been holdouts from the earliest times in the west of Britain, having been pushed that direction first by the Romans, then by the Anglo-Saxons.  More importantly, while the towns and settlements accepted the demands of the Catholics, there seems to have been a remnant in their mountain holdouts, which resisted the demands of Catholics, namely infant baptism and the authority of the Pope. This seems familiar with the case with the Waldensens of Italy (see this post).  

In his book "History of the Welsh Baptists", published 1835, there is an interesting account of a Catholic monk,being sent by pope Gregory, referred to as Austin the monk - who, in about the year 600, confronted some folks that were already Christians in the area of Wales. Demanding that they submit to the pope and sprinkle their chidren. They seemed to have (more or less) told the monk to go pound sand.  Apparently, Roman Catholicsm had just now reached these people, who promptly rejected it.  They, as did the Waldenses, suffered greatly for their faith.

Joseph of Arimathea in Britain?

First off, the Bible makes no mention of this and none of this really matters in regards to Scripture, but as a "shade-tree" historian, I was interested.  Additionally, the further back you go, most historical sources you will find regarding Christianity are from Catholic sources.  The claim is that Joseph of Arimathea, mentioned in the Gospels (eg. Matthew 27) was Mary's (mother of Jesus) uncle and was a wealthy man who was involved in the tin trade.  Britain was a well-known source of tin on already established trading routes with the Mediterranean. Listen to these documentaries below for background info on this subject. 

 

II Timothy chapter 4

In the last chapter of II Timothy, we see mention of 2 people named Claudia and Pudens and nowhere else. All we can really say is that they were with Paul for some amount of time.  What if there were historical evidence that this same Claudia was a Welsh princess, or rather the daughter of a Welsh tribal chieftain?  Wales is in the UK - a long ways from Rome. To me, if true, would be a fascinating connection for the people and history of Britain and the Bible. I can't recall where I first read someone mention this (possible) connection, but I am pretty sure it was while reading a bit on Baptist history. Please note, I am not advocating this to be historical fact, yet it is something that seems to have some merit and something I will be looking into further. So, as someone who is more inclined to watch a history documentary than a football game, the notion of a woman named Claudia being connected with Britain caught my attention and I will be reading more on this subject.

Sources for further reading:

• History of the Welsh Baptists
• Gildas
• Bede

Regarding the Waldenses - Interesting Old Book by Samuel Morland 1658

As one starts to read about the Waldenses, you will sooner or later come across mention of this book.  The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by Samuel Morland 1658. The writing is in the older Elizabethean style, the same as the original 1611 King James Bible.

I will be adding to this post later, with notable mentions, but it is full of accounts of who the Waldenses were and what they believed. In short - salvation by faith alone, and no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus ( I Tim 2:5 ) - long before the reformation ever started.  However, I am NOT claiming all their doctrines line up with what I believe or that they are "ancient Baptists", but merely that they advocated that scripture should be our authority and not the pope, as well as a few other things that invoked the wrath of Rome.  See pages 30-34. 

I found a used hardcover version on ebay and bought it for reference.  It's a 1982 reprint of the original 1658 edition.  If you have read "The Trail of Blood", this is something I would recommend as well. I doubt if I read the entire thing from front to back, but sections at a time.

Fold-out map of the valleys of the Piemont that was in the front of the book I found. This area is in northern Italy.  History is what you know, heritage is what you keep...and we are loosing ours fast.

You can also find a PDF copy of this book, which typically contains two volumes - on archive.org here:
https://archive.org/details/historyofevangel00morl

My Premium KJV Bible Buying Guide

Short answer:
Look at Cambridge Bibles. You can get them at one of several places:

(1) evangelicalbible.com (I have bought several here)
(2) thekjvstore.com
(3) amazon.com (can find used if patient)
(4) ebay

 
Background:
So you want a new KJV Bible with a leather cover that's easy to read and carry?  There are tons of options, but for myself I seem to like Cambridge, especially their Concord.  I Have or had one of the following:  Allan, Cambridge and Church Bible Publishers (CBP). Another option Ive considered is TBS (Trinitarian Bible Society).  However, it's not the cover that matters, but what's written on the pages inside!  Still, when one goes looking for Bible that will last, it's things like the printers, the binding and paper used that one starts to consider.

With Cambridge, I like the fact that they include the Translators to the Reader, which few publishers do nowdays. However, it's the text layout itself that is much easier to read.  The Allan uses the Oxford text which is an older style font and layout. Both Allan and Cambridge use Royal Jongbloed printers in the Netherlands, which are reknown for their quality.

My current KJV Bible collection includes several Cambridge and one Allan which I'm not sure I will keep.  My collection, which includes more than those in the photos below, fill one row of a bookshelf.

From top to bottom:
Allan Ruby 103 reference edition 
Cambridge Concord personal edition
Cambridge Concord w/calfskin full yapp cover

Here is the Allan Ruby and Concord viewed from the top

Concord - Personal sized and full compared

My 1st Concord from a few years ago, which has a goatskin cover but not the yapp.  The cover is very "floppy", which can be kinda like carrying a wet noodle 😀

 

Yes, that makes 4 Cambridge Concords.  I think Im done for now. If I had to only have one, it would probalby be the Personal sized Concord.  A leather cover is nice to hold on to, but a very readable text that I have no reason to question, is easily carried and pages turn easy are the things that matter to me the most.  The Personal sized Concord can be found < $50 on Amazon, which is probably why I have 2...