Pages

Friday, April 29, 2016

FREE Machen biography by Stonehouse from the OPC


Celebrate the 100th anniversary of J. Gresham Machen’s ordination with a free copy of his biography by Ned B. Stonehouse, a co-founder of Westminster Theological Seminary with Machen. You can get your copy in ePub or Mobi format through the Orthodox Presbyterian Church here. Enjoy!

 http://store.opc.org/SearchResults.asp?Cat=1823

The Lion of Princeton

B.B. Warfield was among the most consequential figures in the history of the Reformed faith in America and his presence and influence are still felt even today. In this new book Kim Riddlebarger provides a biographical overview of Warfield’s life and traces the growing appreciation for Warfield’s thought by contemporary Reformed thinkers. Furthermore, he evaluates the fundamental structures in Warfield’s overall theology and examines Warfield’s work in the field of systematic theology.

Warfield’s continuing influence make this book an invaluable new resource that will add significant clarity to the study of Warfield and his theology.

Everyone’s a Theologian

Many people react negatively to the word theology, believing that is involves dry, fruitless arguments about minute points of doctrine. They prefer to focus on the basic truths of Scripture and may even declare, “No creed but Christ.”

But as R.C. Sproul argues, everyone is a theologian. Any time we think about a teaching of the Bible and strive to understand it, we are engaging in theology. Therefore, it is important that we put the Bible’s varied teachings together in a systematic fashion using proper, time-tested methods of interpretation so as to arrive at a theology that is founded on truth.

That is precisely what Sproul does in Everyone’s a Theologian. Sproul, demonstrating his trademark ability to make complex subjects easily understood, surveys the basic truths of the Christian faith, reminding us once more of what God is like and of what he has done for his people in this world and the next.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

ARTICLE X: The Autographs

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article X deals directly with the perennial issue of the relationship of the text of Scripture that we now have to the original documents, which have not been preserved except through the means of copies. In the first instance, inspiration applies strictly to the original autographs of Scripture, the original works of the inspired authors. This indicates that the infallible control of God in the production of the original Scriptures has not been perpetuated through the ages in the copying and translating process. It is plainly apparent that there are some minute variations between the manuscript copies that we possess and that the translating process must inject variations for those who read Scripture in a language other than Hebrew and Greek. So the framers of the Chicago Statement are not arguing for a perpetually inspired transmission of the text.

Since we do not have the original manuscripts, some have argued that an appeal to the lost originals renders the whole case for the inspiration of Scripture irrelevant. To reason in this manner is to show contempt for the very serious work that has been done in the field of textual criticism. Textual criticism is the science that seeks to reconstruct an original text by a careful analysis and evaluation of the manuscripts we now possess. This task has to be accomplished with respect to all documents from antiquity that have reached us through manuscript copies. The Old and New Testament Scriptures are probably the texts that have reached us with the most extensive and reliable attestation. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases, the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations), we do have, for practical purposes, the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

The further affirmation of Article X is that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. Though we do not possess the originals, we have well-reconstructed translations and copies that, to the extent they correspond to the originals, may be said to be the Word of God. But because of the evident presence of copy errors and errors of translation, the distinction must be made between the original work of inspiration in the autographs and the human labor of translating and copying those autographs.

The denial is concerned with the important point that in those minuscule segments of existing manuscripts where textual criticism has not been able to ascertain the original reading with absolute certainty, no essential article of the Christian faith is affected.

To limit inerrancy or inspiration to the original manuscripts does not make the whole contention irrelevant. It does make a difference. If the original text were errant, the church would have the option of rejecting its teachings. If the original text is inerrant (and we must depend on the science of textual criticism to reconstruct that inerrant text), we have no legitimate basis for disobeying a mandate of Scripture where the text is not in doubt. For example, if two theologians agree that the original text was inerrant, and if both agree as to what the present copy teaches and further agree that the present copy is an accurate representation of the original, then it follows irresistibly that the two men are under divine obligation to obey that text. If, on the other hand, we asserted that the original manuscripts were possibly errant, and the two theologians then agreed as to what the Bible taught and also agreed that the present translation or copy faithfully represented the original, neither would be under moral obligation to submit to the teachings of that possibly errant original. Therein lies the importance of the character of the original manuscript.


R. C. Sproul, Can I Trust the Bible?, vol. 2, The Crucial Questions Series (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 31–35.

THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY

A SHORT STATEMENT

  1.      God, who is Himself truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.
  2.      Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
  3.      The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
  4.      Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.
  5.      The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church.


ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL

Article I
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II
We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III
We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration.

Article V
We affirm that God’s revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII
We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

Article X
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV
We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus’ teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the church’s faith throughout its history. We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII
We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ. We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the church.


R. C. Sproul, Can I Trust the Bible?, vol. 2, The Crucial Questions Series (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), xv–xxi.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

B-P Church = Bible-Pharisee Church ??????????????

"Pharisee" is derived from Ancient Greek Pharisaios (Φαρισαῖος),[7] from Aramaic Pərīšā (פְּרִישָׁא), plural Pərīšayyā (פְּרִישַׁיָּא), meaning "set apart, separated", related to Hebrew pārûš (פָּרוּשׁ), plural pĕrûšîm (פְּרוּשִׁים), the Qal passive participle of the verb pāraš (פָּרַשׁ)

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

 B-P Church is


Bible-Pharisee Church ???, or ???

Bible-Press Church....???



Contact in Singapore

 Pastor:
 
Rev. Tan Eng Boo : 02-9784-2761 (Hp)
email: revteb@rocketmail.com
 
 
Elder:
 
Seah Soon Huat
: 02-9835-2178 (Hp)
email: seahiren@singnet.com.sg

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Did the NIV Delete 64,575 Words?

by Christopher D. Hudson
I rarely get involved in debates on Bible translation. In fact, I don’t weigh in a lot of debates, as I believe my mission is to challenge people to simply read, engage, and apply the Bible.
As long as people are reading God’s Word, I’m not concerned about varying opinions on Bible translations, worship styles, church denominations, etc. I’m happy knowing we share a faith in Christ Jesus first and foremost, and I hope to walk with my brothers and sisters as we take one more step in the journey with Jesus.
However, I feel I must speak up when trust in God’s Word is in danger of becoming weakened due to someone’s attacks on certain translations of the Bible. A person who solely promotes the KJV (King James Version) and believes that any modern translation is evil undermines the faith of people who choose to read and study God’s Word in a translation other than the KJV.
As personal background, my degree is in ancient languages (New Testament Greek). I have a love for many Bible translations, as they have been helpful to many people (myself included) in their walk with Christ. I enjoy reading regularly from the KJV, NIV, ESV,  NLT and others. 

MY LOVE FOR THE KJV
I absolutely love the King James Version (KJV). In fact, I serve as the editor of a KJV Study Bible. God has used the KJV mightily over the centuries, but it is only a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek Bible. 
Ultimately, I firmly believe that God’s Word is infallible. But I don’t want to confuse God’s Word (in the original Greek and Hebrew texts) with human fallible translation efforts. God’s Word is infallible. The NIV is fallible. So is the ESV. So is every translation—even my beloved KJV.
There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God gave special blessing to Martin Luther’s translation, John Wycliffe’s translation, or to King James’s translation.

I don’t say that to undermine the Bible at all. God is perfect, and the gospel is perfect. His Word is infallible. One of the benefits of having so many translations is that we can do our best to understand the text as it was originally written thousands of years ago.

ZONDERVAN/HARPERCOLLINS
Some who attack the NIV in favor of the KJV openly denounce those who publish and back the NIV. In full disclosure, I am personal friends with the editors at Zondervan who publish the NIV Bible. We e-mail and talk on the phone often. I can assure you they are faith-driven, humble, Jesus-following people. They are actively involved in conservative churches and ministry. I’ve known some of their staff for nearly twenty years; we have challenged each other in our faith and walk with Christ. I have no doubt of their Christian commitment or their passion for preserving God’s Word.

Zondervan is owned by HarperCollins, and HarperCollins is owned by News Corp. As public corporations (headed by Rupert Murdoch), these companies are not “Christian” companies. However, the leaders of the organizations have wisely realized that they will make more money if they allow Zondervan to fulfill its faith-driven, Jesus-centered mission. They know that Christians trust Zondervan, and they’ve intentionally allowed the company to remain staffed with deeply committed, faith-driven, Jesus-centered people. In fact, the head of Zondervan’s Bible publishing efforts has served as a long-term pastor. He and I spoke this week on the phone about our mutual love for Jesus, Christ's teaching, and the truth about the gospel.

Christians have no grounds for criticizing the NIV based on its publishers. Even though the parent company, News Corp, is a secular corporation looking to turn a profit, it doesn’t interfere with the Christian editors who are preserving God’s Word at Zondervan. I believe that God has blessed Zondervan’s efforts so that they are among the most profitable divisions of HarperCollins.

HAS THE NIV REMOVED 64,575 WORDS FROM THE BIBLE?
An accusation has been made that the translators of the NIV removed a remarkably large number of words from the text of the NIV. This may be one of the most ill-informed and unfounded arguments against the NIV I’ve ever heard. I’m guessing the person who made this accusation looked at overall word count of the KJV and the NIV and saw a difference. Or maybe they counted all the “thees” and “thous” that the NIV doesn’t include? Actually, I can’t figure out how they would have come up with that number.

So, did the NIV translators remove words that are in the KJV? Yes. Their goal was to translate the original intent of the biblical writers in fewer words. Did they undermine or take away from the biblical meaning in doing so? No. (Translating between languages is always dynamic and never just word for word. The best translator in any setting can communicate the literal meaning with fewer words.)

Some people have criticized the NIV due to the removal of the term “Holy Ghost.” That’s just silly. NIV translators used “Holy Spirit,” which is essentially the same term. Personally, I believe that “Holy Spirit” is probably a better translation and more accurate for a modern-day reader. (Is it better to tell children that God is a Ghost or that God is a Spirit?) Anyone who uses this change in wording as an argument against the NIV shows they are trying to be inflammatory and not being intellectually honest.

DOES THE NIV USE A STRANGE BIBLE TRANSLATION MODEL?
Not at all. The NIV gets attacked a lot because it is the most popular translation. However, very similar translation philosophies are followed by translators of the ESV and the NLT. If you throw out the NIV, you need to throw out virtually all modern translations that follow similar translation philosophies.

HAS THE NIV REMOVED VERSES FROM THE BIBLE?
Another factor in the debate on Bible translation is the Hebrew and Greek texts these translations came from. I believe that the Greek and Hebrew texts used by modern scholars for recent translations (NIV, NLT, ESV, etc.) are more accurate.

The KJV was published in 1611 from a collection of Greek texts, which has become known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is an excellent collection of manuscripts, and reading from them (or a Bible translated from them) can properly teach people about God, Jesus, and the gospel. However, there is no Bible verse that says the Textus Receptus is inspired. I believe the only inspired versions are the original copies written by the original authors.

The problem lies in that for over a thousand years, people hand copied the Bible word by word. And while these outstanding scribes were 99.99 percent accurate, occasionally they made a mistake. To me, what is remarkable is how accurate these scribes remained while playing a gigantic game of “telephone” (each copying a previous person’s work).

As language scholarship and archaeology has improved, we have been able to get back to manuscripts that seem to more likely resemble the original autographs written right after the time of Christ. As we’ve gotten closer to the original, we have found that there were a handful of problems in the Textus Receptus. While none of these problems really violate the gospel, they offer subtle changes.

As an example, it appears there are about 45 verses that the New Testament writers did not actually include in their original work. Well-meaning scribes seemed to have added them in over the centuries to help clarify a verse or passage in order to help readers understand.
However, none of those 45 verses change any core belief of the gospel. They are almost all clarifications. My faith is solid in God, Jesus, and the atoning work of salvation even if those 45 verses aren’t there (or if they are, it doesn’t change anything). Modern translations (including the NIV) are often criticized for removing the 45 verses. Actually, they have done a better job of maintaining the original Bible text since it looks like the 45 verses were not in the original. (Also, the 45 verses really haven’t been removed from the NIV at all—each of these verses is still present in every copy of the NIV and can be found in the NIV footnotes.)

BIBLE ACCURACY AND MY FAITH
This area of textual criticism is an area I studied extensively. My faith is in God and the God of the Bible. My hope is in Jesus. If I can’t trust the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, I can’t know that my faith is firm. After much, much study, I came to the conclusion that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are very accurate. They accurately record Jesus’ words and teaching. As such, my faith is secure. 
It’s easy to throw rocks, and I’m afraid those who vehemently oppose and attack the NIV (or any other translation) do so in a way that hurts Christians and their faith. Thankfully, Jesus is bigger than our human attempts to win an argument. I pray he’ll continue to be exalted even while some Christians—perhaps well-meaning ones—continue to tarnish the love and gospel of Christ in their efforts to preserve what they believe is the truth.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

FEBC starts another round of fighting

FEBC starts another round of fighting with Life BP Church, calling Life BP Church as liberal.


Not Liberal

Neither are we liberal or modernistic. Liberalism or Modernism says you can be a Christian without believing the Bible, without believing in Jesus Christ. Be warned that liberalism has crept into the Presbyterian Church. One clear example is the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America (PCUSA). In 1924, 1293 Presbyterian ministers in the PCUSA denied the five fundamentals of the Christians Faith: (1) Inerrancy of Scripture, (2) Virgin Birth, (3) Miracles of Christ, (4) Substitutionary Atonement, and (5) Resurrection of Christ. Do you believe the Bible is 100% God’s Word without any mistake and Jesus Christ is the only Saviour? If you do not believe in the five fundamentals of the faith, you should not call yourself a Presbyterian, not even Christian. Without the five fundamentals of the faith, there is no Christianity and no salvation. But today in the PCUSA and in the Presbyterian Church here in Singapore, and even in the Bible-Presbyterian Church, there are those who say the Bible is not 100% perfect. They say the Bible was only perfect in the past when it was first written, but no longer perfect today. They deny that God has preserved His inspired words perfectly. But Psalm 12:6-7 says very clearly, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Jesus said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt 5:18).

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Rev Moses Hahn


B-P Pastors and Leaders Retreat

B-P Pastors and Leaders Retreat, 13-14 July 2015. Theme: "Building and Bonding" at Pulai Springs Resort.

I wish all of you, peace and "Faith, Hope, Love." The greatest is love......love one another, so that the world may know you are my disciples.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Heresy versus Schism: Which is Worse?

Dear All,
 
Heresy dies out. Schisms last for centuries. Heresy invites its own reversal by awakening a dynamic orthodoxy. Schism freezes doctrine, interferes with its healthy development. Heretics after all passionately want to improve the church's teaching. Their passion ignites a new passion in the church. Schism only provokes the passion of hatred, and its concomitant, war. In this discussion on the seriousness of heresy vis-a-vis schism, one of our company reminds us that the great schism between East and West is the first great fragmentation of the Church. Another listsib goes back to the Monophysite controversies of the fifth century, and their schisms.

These prove the point I have been arguing: heresy is essentially a short-term phenomenon, schism is long-term. Heresy forces the church to articulate its message more accurately.

For instance, the term homousios ("of one Being" in the Nicene Creed) is an accurate theoretical description of Jesus' relation to God, over against Arius' contention that "there was a time when He (Jesus Christ) was not." There was no schism because of the Arian controversy. even though it was one of the most serious and deadly heresies of all.

This later developed into the Monophysite controversy, as to whether Jesus had one ("mono") nature ("physis") or two, as Chalcedon insisted. After Chalcedon (451) there was a schism over the person of Christ.

One of the consequences of that schism was the disillusionment with Christianity of a young man thirsting for God named Muhammed.

More importantly, think how our divisions have given the lie to the Gospel we all preach.

Heresy dies out. Schisms last for centuries. Heresy invites its own reversal by awakening a dynamic orthodoxy. Schism freezes doctrine, interferes with its healthy development. Heretics after all passionately want to improve the church's teaching. Their passion ignites a new passion in the church. Schism only provokes the passion of hatred, and its concomitant, war.


I reiterate, schism is always worse than heresy. For heresy is about doctrine - credo ut intelligam - while schism is about abandoning the commandment to love one another as Christ has loved us.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

KJV only?

This past Sunday at church, a young lady in our congregation shared with me about someone she knows who believes that the King James Version(KJV) of the Bible is the only inspired translation. She went on to say that this acquaintance will actually go so far as to say that someone cannot be saved unless the KJV is used! It occurred to me that this young lady is most likely not the only person with a friend, relative, or co-worker who believes that the KJV is the only "inspired" version of the Bible.

Before commenting further, I want to be sure I'm clear on one thing; I like the KJV translation of the Bible. It's eloquence and poetic verse are second to none. Those who enjoy using the translation, whether because they were raised on it or due to the poetic nature of the verses, I believe it to be a good translation and see nothing wrong with it. However, I believe it to be one of the many good translations available today and certainly not the best.

My goal in this post is to 1) provide resources to understand the KJV only debate better 2) to provide questions for you to ask those who hold to "KJV Onlyism." I hope you find it helpful!

Here are some helpful resources:

A Complete History of the KJV Bible

The King James Bible

or check out this audio from Dr. Dan Wallace, New Testament Scholar

Background Information

If you are new to the KJV-only issue by Brian Tegart

If your not new to the KJV-only issue by Brian Tegart

If you are "KJV-only" by Brian Tegart

On the KJV Translators

The KJV Translators said THAT? by Brian Tegart

The Lofty and Worthy Endeavor or Goal of the KJV Translators by Rick Norris

Accuracy of the King James Version

Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today by Daniel Wallace

Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? Answering the Allegations of the KJV Only Advocates by James R. White

Errors in the King James Version? by William W. Combs

Issue Settled


Jesus is NOT KJV-Only! by Brian Tegart

Questions to ask KJV-Only Advocates

Ten Questions for "KJV Only" Supporters

In summary, the KJV is a good translation, but that is all.

read more: http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/search/label/KJV%20Onlyism

Trinity and Revelation 3

 WORD BY WORD

The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament New International Version (2011)

Revelation 3:1
Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἔχων τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας· Οἶδά σου τὰ ἔργα, ὅτι ὄνομα ἔχεις ὅτι ζῇς, καὶ νεκρὸς εἶ.  | NIV2011 NT RI
“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. | NIV

Revelation 3:2
γίνου γρηγορῶν, καὶ στήρισον τὰ λοιπὰ ἃ ἔμελλον ἀποθανεῖν⸃, οὐ γὰρ εὕρηκά σου τὰ ἔργα πεπληρωμένα ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ μου·  | NIV2011 NT RI
Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God | NIV

Revelation 3:3
μνημόνευε οὖν πῶς εἴληφας καὶ ἤκουσας καὶ τήρει, καὶ μετανόησον· ἐὰν οὖν μὴ γρηγορήσῃς, ἥξω ὡς κλέπτης, καὶ οὐ μὴ γνῷς ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ·  | NIV2011 NT RI
Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. | NIV

Revelation 3:4
ἀλλὰ ἔχεις ὀλίγα⸃ ὀνόματα ἐν Σάρδεσιν ἃ οὐκ ἐμόλυναν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ περιπατήσουσιν μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐν λευκοῖς, ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν.  | NIV2011 NT RI
Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy | NIV

Revelation 3:5
ὁ νικῶν οὕτως περιβαλεῖται ἐν ἱματίοις λευκοῖς, καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐξαλείψω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ ὁμολογήσω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ πατρός μου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ.  | NIV2011 NT RI
The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels | NIV

Revelation 3:6
ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.  | NIV2011 NT RI
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. | NIV

Interpretation:
3 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write:

  These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

  4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.


The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Re 3:1–6.


Doctrine of Trinity in this chapter

1. Jesus Christ is holding the seven spirits of God. He is the Son of God. He mention the Holy Spirit here in verse 1

2. Jesus Christ said He is seeing his God in verse 2.

3. He said He is coming like a thief.

4. Jesus Christ acknowledged God the Father as "my Father." Christ taught the same in the gospels—that whoever would confess Him before men, in turn, He would confess before His Father and the angels (Mtt. Mat. 10:32; Luke Luke 12:8). What powerful incentive this is for our witness of Him in the face of skeptics and mockers! When standing before such men, let us consider ourselves to be standing before the very throne of the Father in our confession of the Son. “Coming immediately after the promise of not erasing the overcomer’s name from the book of life, this promise implies that on that future day of reckoning the judge will acknowledge the names written in the book as those who belong to Him.”

Even in the last book of the Bible, we learned that Our God is one, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Our God is eternal. Three Persons in One God. Amen.

Can Bible-Presbyterian Church unite as one? The answer is no! Big No.....

They like to quarrel, everyday quarrel, Tiam-Tiam Quarrel, TTQ......





FEBC and Life BPC are Church of Sardis

Revelation 3 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write:

  These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

  4 Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who is victorious will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels. 6 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Re 3:1–6.

Wake Up—The Message to the Church in Sardis (3:1–6)

“You Are Dead!” (1–3)

The two most adverse reports are sent to Sardis and to Laodicea. In this letter to Sardis, Jesus passes over any estimate of their “deeds” and their “reputation” to give the bottom line: “You are dead” (Revelation 3:1). Their only hope is to “Wake up!” How do they do this? They must complete the deeds they began at a former time, “Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent” (Revelation 3:3). What will the consequences be if this is not done? Certainly it will be no less than His warning to the Ephesians, “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Revelation 2:5). Or to Pergamum, “Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (Revelation 2:16). But to Sardis, Jesus simply warns, “I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you” (Revelation 3:3).

A Few Still Live (4–6)

Even in a congregation judged as dead, a few individuals have managed to stay alive and refused to be entangled in either the sin of the world or the apathy of a dying congregation. They “have not soiled their clothes.” Jesus promises, “They will walk with me, dressed in white” (Revelation 3:4). He promises the one who overcomes, “I will never blot out his name from the book of life” (Revelation 3:5). By inference, Jesus is saying unless a person remains faithful, his name will be blotted out.
As Jesus introduces himself to this church, He is described as holding the sevenfold Spirit (the Holy Spirit) in one hand and the seven stars (angels or messengers) in the other. This is appropriate to the deepest need of the congregation. They need life, and the Spirit is associated with giving life: “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4).

Lewis Foster, Revelation: Unlocking the Scriptures for You, Standard Bible Studies (Cincinnati, OH: Standard, 1989), 54.